Managing the Nuclear Legacy

Published by:

The Bellona Foundation www.bellona.org

Norway: Belgium: Oslo Bellona Europe P.O.Box 2141 Rue du Sceptre, 25 Grünerløkka 1050 Brussels N-0505 Oslo Belgium E-mail: E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

Russia: USA: Murmansk Bellona USA P.O. Box 4310 P.O. Box 53060 183038 Murmansk E- Washington, D.C. 20009 mail: USA [email protected]

This report was first published in Norwegian. Photocopying permitted if source is stated Comments to this report are welcomed.

Keywords: Sellafield, Calder Hall,THORP,Magnox, plutonium, MOX, reprocessing, radioactive contamination, nuclear energy.

Author: Erik Martiniussen

Language Consultant: Marte-Kine Sandengen

Graphic Design: Philip Hauglin

Photography: Oter Bildebyrå, Erik Martiniussen, Nils Bøhmer, Per Eide, BNFL

Printer: PDC Tangen

ISBN: 82-92318-08-9 ISSN: 0806-3451 Bellona's partnership with Main sponsor of this report: business and industry.

In 1998, Bellona launched its B7 partnership program with business and industry.The environmental program is factual, geared towards finding practicable solutions Østfold County Council through the use of technology, and is based on a dialogue with leaders in trade and industry who seek to be on the forefront of development. Other sponsors: THE B7 PROGRAM TODAY CONSISTS OF THE FOLLOWING PARTNERS: Akershus fylkeskommune Akershus County Council Aker Kværner Aker RGI Hordaland fylkeskommune Applied Plasma Physics Hordaland County Council Bertel O. Steen Braathens Nordland fylkeskommune Conoco Phillips Norway Nordland County Council Coop Norge E-CO Sogn og Fjordane fylkeskommune Eidesvik Sogn og Fjordane County Council Eiendomsspar Energos Energy and Industry Eramet Ferrolegeringens Forskningsforening Norwegian Fishing Vessels Owners Association Fred Olsen Marine Harvest Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry (NHO) Federation of Norwegian Processing Industries (PIL) Norway Post Select Service Partner Norske Shell as Skretting Statkraft Special thanks go to: Statoil Uniteam • Our B7 partners and sponsors whose financial Water Power Industries (WPI) support has made it possible to produce this report. • Our network amongst our B7 partners and in the The above companies are firms who represent branches, fields of research, business and administration who products and services that play a crucial role in defining have contributed their expertise. the environmental requirements of the future. • Norwegian Seafood Export Commission / Seafood from Norway for the contribution of photographs. The B7 program examines important and long-term • All others who have so generously assisted in the parameters for society and the environment, and the making of this report. parties view each other as sparring partners and opposing experts at the forefront of their respective For the record we would like to stress that the firms, fields mutually in search of improvements that are industries and public agencies mentioned above are environmentally sound as well as economically feasible. not responsible for the contents of this report.

Preface

Bellona visited the Sellafield reprocessing plant for the At the same time this very concrete case shows that first time in 1995. Since then, we have worked purpose- Bellona's political efforts are effective. In the spring of 2003, fully towards obtaining an overview of the environmental Bellona and the political action group "Lofoten against risks that certain parts of the facility represent, as well as to Sellafield" initiated a conference in Sellafield with a focus gain an understanding of the clean-up tasks Britain is facing. on Tc-99. Here, in Cupertino with British Nuclear Fuels The information in this report is therefore based both on Plc (BNFL), evidence was presented to show that these formal studies and material that we have collected over discharges of radioactivity could effectively be halted in the course of several visits to the site. the expectation of the development of new purification technology for Tc-99.The response came very quickly.The Bellona Report No. 8: Sellafield gives an overview of the British Government has now requested BNFL to halt information that Bellona has thus far assembled about the releases of Tc-99 in expectation of the new purification British reprocessing facility Sellafield. As a rule, it is dis- technology. Experiments in purification by chemical charges of radioactive substances from the facility that means through the use of the precipitant TPP began in capture the attention of the media; however, there are also October 2003. A final decision regarding the Tc-99 dis- a number of other important challenges facing Sellafield. charges is expected to be announced in March 2004. From the time that the facility was completed in the early The Sellafield matter is under continual development, 1950s, Sellafield has been closely associated with the British and you may find the latest updates on our web site, nuclear weapons program. Hence it is not only discharges www.bellona.org. of radiation from the facility that cause concern. Fifty years of British weapons development and nuclear re- We would particularly like to thank certain institutions search have also left in their wake a number of problems and individuals who have assisted us in our efforts to bearing on the handling of nuclear waste. One of the gather and analyse the information in this report. Martin largest challenges is how to handle the 1570 m³ of highly Forwood from "Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive active liquid nuclear waste that is presently being stored Environment (CORE) was helpful in providing information in tanks inside the facility. Just for caesium-137 alone the and guiding services in the local community around the current amount of activity in these tanks is equivalent to Sellafield plant. BNFL has made available information and 100 times the amount of radioactivity that was released illustrative material, showing Bellona around the facility as a result of the Chernobyl accident.The tank facility at on several occasions.The Norwegian Radiation Protection Sellafield therefore constitutes a major risk factor,not only Authority has analysed the samples that Bellona has taken for the immediate environs, but also for neighbouring of lobsters off the Norwegian coast. Bellona also owes countries. Likewise Sellafield's storage of 80 tonnes of great thanks to supporters who have made financial contri- plutonium constitutes a serious hazard to the natural butions to the preparation and production of this report. environment.This waste must be handled in a responsible manner and placed in a repository. I would personally like to thank my colleagues at the Bellona Foundation, Frederic Hauge and Nils Bøhmer, for For many years Bellona's work has focused on the major assisting both in the obtaining of factual information and clean-up efforts in Northwest Russia left in the wake of for professional discussions.Thanks too to Marius Holm the cold war. Nevertheless it is not these sources that who provided information concerning the effects of account for the radioactive pollution measured in the radiation releases on Norwegian aquaculture and ocean Barents Sea. Measurements of radioactive waste in the farming. Barents Sea indicate that the historical releases of radioactivity from Sellafield, along with fallout from nuclear test Last but not least, I would like to thank the initiators of explosions at Novaya Zemlya are the primary culprits. "Lofoten against Sellafield" for an inspiring and productive Today it is the large releases of the radioactive element co-operation. technetium-99 (Tc-99) from Sellafield that is largely responsible for the pollution of the Norwegian coast and Oslo, 20 December 2003 the Barents Sea. Erik Martiniussen

7 Abbreviations

Alpha particles: Radiation consisting of two protons and two neutrons. Am-241: Americium-241. B204: The first reprocessing Plant at Sellafield. B205: Magnox Reprocessing Plant. B215: Storage building at Sellafield for highly active liquid waste. B211: Tank facility at Sellafield containing large amounts of Tc-99 waste. Beta particles: Radiation consisting of one electron. BNFL: British Nuclear Fuel Plc; British nuclear power company. Becquerel (Bq): Unit for measuring radioactivity; 1 Bq = 1 disintegration per second. Co.60: Cobalt-60. Cs-137: Caesium-137. DEFRA: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. EA: Environment Agency; British environmental directorate. EARP: Enhanced Actinide Removal Plant; purification plant at Sellafield. FSA: Food Standard Agency. Gamma radiation: High energy electromagnetic radiation. GBq: Gigabecquerel (1 GBq = 1000 MBq). H-3: Tritium. ICRP: International Commission on Radiological Protection. HAL Highly Active Liquor: high level waste in liquid form. HSE: Health and Safety Executive; British safety inspectorate. MAC: Medium Active Concentrate; medium active liquid radioactive waste. MBq: Megabecquerel (1 MBq = 1 million Bq). MDF: MOX Demonstration Facility. MOX: Mixed Oxide Fuel; nuclear fuel produced from uranium and plutonium. NII: Nuclear Installation Inspectorate. NIREX: Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Management Executive. OSPAR: Oslo-Paris convention for the protection of the marine environment in the North-East Atlantic. Pu: Plutonium. PBq: Petabecquerel = 1015 Bq. RPII: Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland. Ru-106: Ruthenium-106. SEPA: Scottish Environment Protection Agency. SIXEP: Salt Evaporator and Site Ion Exchange Effluent Plant; purification facility at Sellafield. SMP: Sellafield MOX plant. Sr-90: Strontium-90. TBq: Terabecquerel = 1012 Bq. (1 TBq = 1000 GBq.) Tc-99: Technetium-99. THORP: Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant. TPP: Tetraphenylphosphonium bromide.A chemical that potentially could be used in EARP to precipitate Tc-99 in a solid form. UKAEA: UK Atomic Energy Agency. WVP: Waste vitrification plant.

8 Contents

Chapter 7 Preface 7 Discharges of technetium-99 51 Contents 9 7.1 Tc-99 in the Irish Sea 52 Introduction 10 7.2 Tc-99 in the Norwegian marine environment 54 7.2.1 Seaweed 55 Chapter 1 7.2.2 Molluscs and shellfish 55 Nuclear reactors at Sellafield 13 7.3 Economic values 56 1.1 Historical background 14 7.4 Future discharges of Tc-99 56 1.2 Windscale Piles 14 7.5 Purification methods for Tc-99 56 1.3 Calder Hall 15 7.5.1 New purification facility 57 1.4 Windscale AGR 18 7.5.2 New purification technology using TPP 57 7.5.3 Vitrification 58 Chapter 2 Reprocessing facilities 19 Chapter 8 2.1 The reprocessing plant B204 20 Discharges in the future 59 2.2 Magnox Reprocessing Plant (B205) 20 8.1 OSPAR 60 2.3 Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) 21 8.2 Alpha and beta discharges 60 2.3.1 Technical information 21 2.3.2 Economy 22 Chapter 9 2.3.3 Contracts 22 Radioactive waste 63 2.3.4 Delays 22 9.1 Highly active liquor 64 2.3.5 Decommissioning THORP 24 9.2 Tank facility (B215) 64 9.3 Waste vitrification plant (WVP) 64 Chapter 3 9.3.1 Injunction to reduce the amount MOX production 25 of liquid waste 65 3.1 MOX-Demonstartion Facility (MDF) 26 9.3.2 No final repository plan 66 3.2 Sellafield MOX- Plant (SMP) 26 9.4 Low-level waste 66 3.2.1 Contracts 27 9.5 Storage of plutonium at Sellafield 67 9.5.1 Physical safety 67 Chapter 4 9.5.2 Non-proliferation 68 Historic discharges 29 9.6 Transportation of nuclear waste 69 4.1 Radioactive discharges 1951-1964 30 4.2 The Windscale fire in 1957 30 Chapter 10 4.3 Discharges in the period 1964-1990 32 Discussion 72 4.3.1 The formation of BNFL and the intro- 33 duction of discharge monitoring Appendix 1 4.3.2 Discharges in the 1970s 33 Managing the Nuclear Legacy 73 4.3.3 Discharges in the 1980s 34 4.4 Discharges in the last ten years 34 Appendix 2 Discharges to the Sea from Sellafield 2000 74 Chapter 5 Aerial discharges 37 Appendix 3 5.1 Discharges from THORP 38 Magnox reactors 75

Chapter 6 Appendix 4 Radioactive contamination 41 Other reprocessing facilities 77 6.1 The Irish Sea 43 La Hague 77 6.2 Diffusion 43 Dounreay 77 6.3 Sediments and sand samples 44 Mayak 77 6.4 Contamination of marine plants and animals 45 6.4.1 Contamination of seaweed 48 References/Bibliography 78 6.5 Other samples from the Sellafield vicinity 48 Articles and notes 80 6.6 Incidences of leukaemia among the local population 49

9 Introduction

The English reprocessing plant Sellafield is located on the entails dissolving the spent fuel in acid so that the uranium northwest coast of England, 20 kilometres north of the and plutonium can be isolated from the waste and reused seaport town Barrow-in-Furness on the Irish Sea.The plant as fuel for nuclear reactors. However, when the fuel is is operated and owned by British Nuclear Fuels Plc. dissolved in acid, all the other radionuclides that were (BNFL), which is a one hundred percent government- formed while the fuel was in use in the reactor, are owned company.The plant is one of the three remaining released. These take the form of waste products as reprocessing plants in the world. In addition to Sellafield, strontium-90, caesium-137 and technetium-99, all of there are civilian commercial reprocessing plants in which are elements of no practicable use. Most of the France (La Hague) and in Russia (Mayak). The second radioactive substances can now be cleansed out of the British reprocessing plant at Dounreay (on the northern liquid waste and stored on shore, but the remaining point of Scotland) was shut down in 1996. waste is still discharged directly into the sea in low or Today there are two reprocessing plants operating at medium active concentrations. Sellafield and one plant for the treatment of high-level During the 1950s and 60s, Sellafield had a central role in liquid waste. In addition, there are several reactors and the British nuclear weapons programme. At that time, plants that are shut down and in the process of being reprocessing was carried out in order to separate pluto- decommissioned. It is the two reprocessing plants that nium-239, which was then utilised in the British nuclear cause the largest radioactive discharges from Sellafield, weapons arsenal. Reprocessing was later continued in the contents of which can be traced from the Irish Sea order to reuse the plutonium and uranium in fast breeder north to the coast of Norway and up to the Barents Sea, reactors. In principle, these reactors are powered by reaching as far north as Spitsbergen. plutonium fuel while simultaneously generating more The largest concentrations of radioactivity may be found plutonium, which can then in turn be reused as fuel for along the coastline off the Sellafield site itself. In this area, the reactor. However, the development of fast breeder higher concentrations of plutonium have been detected reactors did not go as expected, with the result that than those that can be meassured in the area around Great Britain terminated its research programme on this Chernobyl. Radioactive contamination has been traced technology in 1994. in shellfish, fish, and seaweed, to ocean water, sediments on With the fast breeder programme having been the bottom of the Irish Sea and in sand on the beaches. terminated, there are few compelling reasons today to In the years to come, BNFL plans to increase activity at its continue reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. Hence BNFL two reprocessing plants at Sellafield, and this will naturally now endeavours to promote reprocessing as a means of lead to further increases in radioactive discharges. recycling uranium and plutonium for reuse in so-called Reprocessing is a method of handling spent reactor fuel. Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX). However, most of the pluto- A number of nuclear powers, such as the United States nium that is stored at Sellafield belongs to BNFL. Since and Sweden, have opted to store their spent reactor fuel, British nuclear reactors are not powered by MOX fuel, while others, including the United Kingdom and France, there are no concrete plans for what to do with this have opted to reprocess the fuel. In essence, reprocessing plutonium which now amounts to 55 tonnes.There is a

10 The Sellafield reprocessing plant further 25 tonnes of plutonium owned by other custo- an element which has a half-life of 213,000 years. The on the North West Coast of England. mers which has not yet been utilised in MOX fuel.At the concentrations of Tc-99, particularly noticeable in same time, BNFL is experiencing a flight of customers. lobster and seaweed, have made a marked increase over Certain key customers have said that they are beginning the last few years. to lose all faith in the company, and in 2002, BNFL posted The Bellona Foundation calls for an immediate halt of a loss of £1 billion.The British government has long had the radioactive discharges from Sellafield. Bellona sees plans to privatise BNFL, but after last year's disastrous no rational reason to produce further amounts of the losses; these plans have now been put on ice. extremely radiotoxic substance plutonium. As Russia and This report describes the historical activity at Sellafield, the United States comply with the terms of the disarm- from the beginning of production of weapons-grade pluto- ament agreement START 2, the world stockpile of nium in the 1950s to today's commercial reprocessing at stored plutonium will become very large. Furthermore, THORP.It describes the radioactive discharges and conta- continued production of plutonium is inconsistent with mination caused by these activities.Along the Norwegian efforts to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons. For coastline today, increased levels of the radioactive these reasons, Bellona calls for an end to reprocessing substance technetium-99 (Tc-99) are being measured, activities.

11 12 Chapter 1 Nuclear reactors at Sellafield Nuclear reactors at Sellafield

As of 2003, the United Kingdom has 27 operative nuclear while simultaneously generating electric power. It was not reactors dispersed between 12 nuclear power plants. Of before the establishment of BNFL in 1972 that there was the British reactors, 12 are of the older, gas-cooled and any real delineation between the civilian and military graphite moderated Magnox type, while 14 are Advanced nuclear industry. Military nuclear fuel can still be handled Gas-cooled Reactors (AGR).The most recent reactor to separately at the Sellafield facility; on these occasions, be put into operation in Great Britain was the pressurised IAEA monitoring routines are suspended. 1 water reactor Sizewell B, which went into operation in 1995.Today, the United Kingdom is the only country in 1.2 the world that still operates gas-cooled reactors. Both Windscale Piles Magnox reactors and AGRs use carbon dioxide as a The first two reactors to be put into operation at Sellafield coolant. were the so-called Windscale Piles.These reactors were At Sellafield itself, there are no longer any reactors in part of a top secret weapons programme which also operation.The last British nuclear power plant to be shut involved the building of the first reprocessing plant down was the Calder Hall power plant with its four gas- (B204) and a common storage pool (B29) to receive cooled and graphite moderated reactors. Within the the spent nuclear fuel from the two reactors. Each of the Sellafield site, there are seven shut down reactors, and reactors contained 1 966 tonnes of graphite and were the work to decommission them is both expensive and 7.43 metres high and 15.32 metres in diameter.They had difficult. In this chapter, we examine the different reactors 3 444 fuel canals, 977 horizontal isotope canals, and a at Sellafield that are to be decommissioned. thermal effect of 180 MW.The reactors utilised fuel rods of metallic uranium 285 mm in length and 25 mm in 1.1 diameter.The fuel had an average burn-up of 300 MWd/t.2 Historical background so as to most effectively increase production of weapons- Great Britain was active in the development of nuclear grade plutonium (Pu-239). weapons during World War 2 and was a participant in Spent nuclear fuel from the Windscale reactors was the American Manhattan Project, which developed the handled in B204 for the entire period that they were in world's first nuclear bomb. In the aftermath of the war, operation. The two reactors produced 35 kg of the British government decided to launch a British nuclear weapons-grade plutonium every year; in the period weapons program, and it was to this end that the between 1951-1957, the B204 reprocessing plant pro- Windscale facility (to be later renamed Sellafield) was duced a total of 385 kg of weapons-grade plutonium ordered to be built in 1947.The first two reactors at the from their fuel.3 It was reprocessed plutonium from the Sellafield plant were the so-called Windscale Piles.These Windscale Piles, which went to make the United were a very particular type of air-cooled and graphite- Kingdom's first nuclear bomb. This was exploded over moderated reactor and were used exclusively to produce the Montebello Islands in Australia in October 1952, plutonium for the weapons industry. The plutonium making Great Britain the world's third largest nuclear generated here was then transported to Aldermaston power after The United States and the Soviet Union.4 where nuclear bombs were manufactured. In 1952, The two Windscale Pile reactors were operative from Britain exploded its first nuclear device over Montebello 1950 to 1957, when a serious fire in reactor no.1 caused Island in Australia. radioactive contamination over a large area.The accident For a long period there was virtually no distinction showed that there were very serious flaws in the design between the British civilian nuclear programme and the of air-cooled reactors, both from a technical and safety country's military nuclear programme. The earliest point of view.The combination of flammable graphite in Magnox reactors produced weapons grade plutonium, the reactor core and the supply of air as coolant, was a

Table 1: Reactors at the Sellafield site. MWe = electrical power, MWt = Megawatt thermal effect

1 Eriksen,V.O. 1995, page 45. 2 The first phase of decommissioning of the Windscale Piles, www.ukaea.org, 06.07.01 3 Albright, Berkhout and Walker, 1993: page 59 4 Bunyard, P.1986.The Sellafield Discharges. 14 ticking firebomb.After the fire, it was decided to shut down the remaining reactor for safety reasons, and no further air-cooled reactors of this type were ever built.The fire in reactor no.1 is further discussed in chapter 4.2. In the period 1958-1961, the immediate vicinity around the reactors was cleansed of radioactive fallout so that the rest of the plant could resume normal operation. The remaining undamaged fuel inside reactor no.1 was removed, and reactor no. 2 was likewise emptied of fuel. Control rods were pushed deep down into the damaged reactor core, and the entire reactor was then encased in cement.The reactors remained this way until 1990 when the British government effected a programme to decommission them. There are allegedly about 17 tonnes of melted and partially damaged reactor fuel still remaining within reactor 1.5 Other sources however assert that there are 15 tonnes.6 The UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) estimates today that there are more than 6 700 damaged fuel assemblies inside the fire-ravaged reactor, and there is some doubt therefore as to whether it will be possible to dismantle the reactor at all.7 Today it is UKAEA who is responsible for the Windscale reactors, but as the leader of a consortium consisting of BNFL, Rolls Royce and NUKEM, BNFL has been received the contract to decommission the fire-damaged reactor. Efforts to decontaminate the tall chimneystacks that is the hallmark of the two reactors are already underway.While the stack on reactor 2 has now been torn down, work on reactor 1 has barely begun. Intense radiation from the reactor core prevents human access to the airshafts. Con- sequently, BNFL is utilising robots for this difficult task. Work is also underway to cleanse the water ducts that lead out from the two reactors. There used to be a common storage pond (B29) between the two reactors to temporarily store spent fuel.The fuel would be transferred from the reactors to the pond by means of a special system of water ducts. This system was badly contaminated by radiation after the 1957 accident. In 1999, after ten years of work, the radioactive sludge from the contaminated canals was finally drained and cleaned out before being transferred to the old fuel storage pond (B29). A further 210 old fuel rods were also found on the bottom of the empty canals. It is unknown how long it will take to decommission the two reactors. So far, only the stack of reactor number 2 has been dismantled, and studies are being made as to how to dismantle the undamaged reactor. The safe dismantling of the fire-damaged reactor will obviously be an even bigger challenge.

1.3 Calder Hall Prime Minister Winston Churchill ordered the building Windscale Piles. Shut down after a catastrophic fire in reactor no. 1 in 1957. 5 The Daily Telegraph, January Friday 1,st 1988. 6 Nuclear Engineering, April 2003, page 10: "Software helps remove Pile 1 at Windscale". 7 The first phase of decommissioning of the Windscale piles, www.ukaea.org, 06.07.01

15 There are four Magnox reactors at the Calder Hall nuclear power of four reactors at Calder Hall in 1953.The original plan uranium which is encased into a special cladding of plant.This photograph was taken in 1998 when all four reactors was to build only one reactor, but it was later decided to magnesium oxide - hence the name Magnox (more about still were in operation. build two power plants, each with two reactors - Calder Magnox reactors in Appendix 3.) Hall A and B.Three years later, on October 17, 1956, the The fuel rods at Calder Hall were approximately one first reactor was officially opened by Queen Elizabeth II.8 metre long and five centimetres in diameter, and weighed The four reactors were officially shut down in March between 10 and 12 kilos.9 The gas was lead from the 2003, at which time the oldest reactor had been in bottom of the reactor tank, up through the reactor core, operation for almost 57 years. and out to the top of the reactor tank. This heated up All four of the Calder Hall reactors were Magnox type the water in the secondary circuit and turned it to steam, reactors, gas-cooled by carbon dioxide and graphite and this in turn powered an electricity generator. The moderated. The reactor core consisted of a several pressure in the secondary circuit (which consisted of graphite chips, each with a cooling canal in the middle. water) was higher than the pressure in the primary Work to empty the reactors of spent nuclear fuel was circuit, which consisted of gas. The steam was then begun in 2003. The name Magnox comes from the cooled to form water inside large turrets. Most Magnox special fuel that is utilised in the reactors. While most reactors have large, round reactor tanks to relieve the nuclear reactors today utilise fuel in the form of uranium pressure inside the reactor. However, the four Calder Hall oxide (UO2), the Magnox reactors utilise natural metallic reactors utilised a cylindrically shaped Magnox reactor

8 BNFL press release, 02.09.1996. 9 Wise News Communiqué (no. 552). 2001

16 Windscale AGR, better known tank, something that had the effect of increasing the load the 1970s.Two of the Calder Hall reactors are thought as the Sellafield Golf Ball. The reactor was closed in April on the reactor tank.The reactor tank itself was built into to have been utilised to produce weapons-grade pluto- 1981. a giant square-shaped concrete colossus to protect against nium in 1978 and 1979; it is also believed that the radiation. One of the weaknesses of the British Magnox reactors were producing 400 kilograms of weapons-grade reactors is that they, like many of the Russian plants, lack plutonium as recently as 1986-1989, which was repro- secondary reactor containment.10 It was the presence of cessed in B205 and delivered to the British Army.11 Thus just such containment that to a large extent reduced the it is thought that the four reactors produced in sum over emission of radioactivity during the 1979 accident at two tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium. Three Mile Island in the United States. The reactors at However, despite their military associations, the Calder Calder Hall played a central role in the United Kingdom's Hall reactors were also a link in the "civilising" of nuclear nuclear weapons programme. In the 1950s there was a power in that they were also the world's first nuclear rising demand for weapons-grade plutonium, and hence reactors to be employed in the production and supply it was planned that the reactors at Calder Hall along with of electricity. Originally, the power plant was built, owned four new reactors at Chapelcross in Scotland would and run by UKAEA.Today BNFL owns the plant, which supply the necessary quantity of weapons-grade pluto- is now ready to be decommissioned. nium. It is thought that Calder Hall was also supplying the Production capacity was comparatively low in all of the British military with weapons-grade plutonium late into reactors, with a power output of only 50 MWe compared

10 Naderson, R. et al. 1986, Summary and conclusions. 11 Albright, D. et al. 1997, page 62.

17 to most modern nuclear reactors today which produce over 1 300 MWe.At the same time, the power output of the four reactors was only 19% of their total efficiency, whereas the more modern AGR reactors have an efficiency of approximately 40 percent.12

1.4 Windscale AGR Windscale/Sellafield was the first nuclear facility in the world to construct an advanced gas-cooled reactor (AGR). Construction of Windscale AGR began in 1958, and the reactor was started up for the first time in 1962. The new reactor was a test model for the new generation of AGR reactors, and had a capacity of about 30 MWe. Windscale AGR was a further development of the Magnox reactors. However, the fuel cladding in this reactor was constructed of stainless steel as opposed to Magnox, and its fuel was not metallic, but ceramic uranium oxide enriched to just above two percent.13 A further developed model of the AGR went on to become the most common reactor of the 1970s and 1980s. In contrast to the Magnox reactor, this new generation of AGR-type reactors had a much higher power production capacity; up to 600 MW. However, in common with the Magnox reactors, all AGR reactors are graphite-moderated and cooled with carbon dioxide. In addition to the prototype test reactor at Sellafield, a further 14 AGR-type reactors were built, most of them in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The last AGR-type reactor was completed in 1989.Although the Windscale AGR was shut down in April 1981, the remaining 14 reactors remain in operation and produce 16 percent of the United Kingdom's total electricity supply. Today, the Windscale AGR is the centrepiece of the UK Atomic Energy Authority's (UKAEA) decommissioning programme for nuclear reactors.The estimated costs for decommissioning the reactor currently lie at about 80 million pounds.14 The last parts of the reactor's graphite core were removed in April 2003.15 The process of decommissioning the entire reactor will not be completed until the year 2130, following a 100-year monitoring period.16

12 Nuclear Engineering International, 2001; World Nuclear Industry Handbook 2001: page 164. 13 Ibid 14 UKAEA, 2001: Remote Control (Phase 1 Decommissioning,Windscale Pile 1) 15 Nuclear Engineering, April 2003, page 2. 18 16 UKAEA, 2001: Remote Control (Phase 1 Decommissioning Windscale Pile 1). Chapter 2 Reprocessing facilities Reprocessing facilities

Three reprocessing facilities have been in operation at delivered from Windscale to Britain's nuclear weapons Sellafield, with the first plant (B204) commencing opera- laboratory at Aldermaston. Six months later, in October tions as early as 1951. This plant was utilised solely to 1952, the United Kingdom detonated its first nuclear produce plutonium for Great Britain's weapons pro- device over Montebello,Australia, thereby becoming the gramme. In 1964, the B204 plant was shut down, and world's third nuclear power.18 since then, a further two plants have been built: the B204 produced a total of 3.6 tonnes of weapons-grade Magnox Reprocessing Plant (B205), which began ope- plutonium, of which nearly 400 kilograms were manufac- rations in 1964, and the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing tured in the period 1951-1957 out of fuel originating from Plant (THORP), which was finally ready to commence the Windscale reactors. A further three tonnes were operation in 1994. produced from fuel from Calder Hall and Chapelcross, while another 400 kilograms were produced from fuel 2.1 coming from other Magnox plants. Much of the weapons The reprocessing plant B204 grade plutonium that UKAEA produced for the British B204 was Great Britain's first reprocessing plant, taking armed forces was produced in "civilian" (non-military) the form of a military facility with a capacity of 300 tonnes Magnox reactors, and it was not until 1969 that a clear of fuel annually, or a maximum of 750 tonnes of low distinction was made between civilian and military pluto- burn-up fuel.17 nium. Prior to 1969, distinction was only made between In April 1952, the first production of plutonium was weapons-grade plutonium with its high concentration of The B204 reprocessing plant. Pu-239, and reactor plutonium.19 In 1964, B204 was replaced by a larger reprocessing plant (B205), which would also be utilised for the reprocessing of fuel for civilian uses. With a production capacity five times greater than that of B204, the new plant (B205) could reprocess fuel from Magnox reactors throughout the United Kingdom.The military reprocessing plant B204 was consequently converted into a pre-treatment plant where uranium oxide spent nuclear fuel from the new generation of AGRs could be pre-treated prior to reprocessing in B205.The B204 plant also accepted fuel for pre-treatment from foreign boiling water reactors and pressurised water reactors prior to further reprocessing of the fuel in B205. The conversion of B204 to a pre-treatment facility was completed in 1969. In 1972, B205 was shut down for one year for repairs, and as a consequence B204 also had to be closed.The pre-handling plant was supposed to reopen on September 26, 1973. However, when the operators started up the plant, a chemical reaction occurred which released a cloud of radioactive gas.The entire plant was contaminated by radiation, and 34 workers were exposed to radioactive ruthenium-106. After that, B204 was never taken into use again.20

2.2 Magnox Reprocessing Plant (B205) Sellafield Magnox Reprocessing Plant (B205) was completed and began commercial operation in January 1964. The plant is still in operation and has a capacity of 1 500 tHM/y. However, in the last five years B205 has reprocessed less than 800 tonnes of fuel per annum.The plant utilises the Purex method (Plutonium Uranium Extraction), which is the most common method of

17 D. Summer, R. Johnson,W. Peden, in Makhijani A. et al., 2000., page 412. 18 Bunyard, P.1986:The Sellafield Discharges. 19 Albright, D. 1997, pp. 59 - 66. 20 May, J. 1989, page 188.

20 reprocessing spent nuclear fuel today.21 The process utilises The plans for the new Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant the extraction agent tributyl phosphate (TBP). (THORP) were made public for hearing by the British Following the closure of the pre-treatment plant (B204) Ministry of the Environment in March in 1977. BNFL had in 1973, the B205 Magnox plant has only processed already secured several contracts for the new facility metallic uranium fuel.Today the facility reprocesses fuel (which the company expected to be up and operational solely from British Magnox reactors. The reprocessing in a relatively short time). plant consists of several buildings and both the extraction After about three months of hearings, approval to build agent and solutions of uranium and plutonium are trans- the new plant was granted. However, construction took ported from building to building by means of pipelines. much longer than expected, and it was not until 1993 Any leakage from one of these pipelines would result in and after several costs overruns that THORP was finally a direct discharge of radioactivity into the air. completed. In the interim, the financial benefits of building The plant was originally built and run by UKAEA, but in the plant had melted away. Contrary to BNFL's expect- 1971 the wholly government-owned company British ations, the prices of uranium had not risen but had in Nuclear Fuel Plc (BNFL) was founded to run the plant. fact fallen dramatically, such that the economic gains of The opening of the B205 reprocessing plant has had the extracting uranium from spent nuclear fuel were no effect of causing Sellafield to be considered a civilian longer so obvious. Simultaneously there were increasing nuclear plant to a greater and greater degree. Other concerns about the radioactive discharges, and a lawsuit factors contributing to this "civilisation" of Sellafield was concerning whether the plant was justified further BNFL's efforts in the 1970s and 1980s to promote the delayed the opening of the facility until March 1994. idea of reprocessing as an effective means of handling spent nuclear reactor fuel from civilian nuclear power 2.3.1 Technical information plants. Furthermore, the company was entering into THORP has an annual reprocessing capacity of 850 tHM/y, contracts to reprocess foreign nuclear fuel. but production varies from year to year, depending on For the first 30 years, over 35 000 tonnes of Magnox what kinds of contracts are secured from foreign fuel and more than 15 000 tonnes of uranium were countries. Like the Magnox reprocessing plant, THORP reprocessed at the B205 plant. Most of the plutonium bases its technology on the Purex method.23 that was and continues to be produced is being stored During its first years of operation,THORP experienced at the plant. In May 2000, BNFL announced its intention considerable difficulty in attaining planned production to phase out the great majority of the Magnox-reactors goals. This was primarily due to problems with one of by the end of 2010.The company intends to cease pro- the transfer systems for nuclear waste.24 This in conjunction duction of Magnox fuel at Springfields in the same year. with other minor problems held production down, and Consequently, BNFL plans to close the B205 Magnox in the entire time up to 2000, the plant had problems reprocessing plant around 2012 when all the Magnox reprocessing enough fuel to reach the set goal of 7 000 fuel will have been reprocessed. If these plans are to tonnes of reprocessed fuel by April 2004. Reprocessed fuel in B205 in relation to goals. come to fruition, BNFL estimates that the B205 plant By the close of 1998,THORP had reprocessed only 1 460 will have to reprocess 1 000 tonnes of spent Magnox tonnes of fuel.25 The year 2000 saw fewer operational *The figures for the fiscal year fuel a year until 2012. 22 problems, and THORP reprocessed its full capacity of 2002/03 are preliminary calculations. In the two years since this decision was made, B205 has handled about 1600 tonnes of fuel, although the actual goal for this period was 2000 tonnes. Closure of the B205 plant by the close of 2012 will therefore require that the facility operates without any problems in the coming years.

2.3 Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) Following the closure of B204 in 1973, it was no longer possible for the British to reprocess the increasingly common uranium oxide fuel. This badly disrupted BNFL's commercial plans to reprocess fuel on commission from foreign countries. Consequently, plans were made to build an additional reprocessing plant that could accommodate this type of fuel.

21 World Nuclear Industry Handbook 2003; 23 Nuclear Engineering International, 2003. World Nuclear Industry Handbook 2003, page 220. World Nuclear Industry Handbook 2003, page 220. 22 BNFL Press Release, 23.05.2000. 24 BNFL Annual Report & Accounts 1999: p. 24 25 BNFL Annual Report & Accounts 1998: p. 16 21 850 tonnes of fuel that year, setting a production record 1970s were so-called "open ended" contracts, meaning for the facility.26 In November 2000 however,new technical that BNFL could change the price of reprocessing in problems had arisen, and the plant was again shut down keeping with what it cost to handle the fuel. However, in for five months. that reprocessing spent nuclear fuel has become far more expensive than anyone could have anticipated.This kind 2.3.2 Economy of a contract is most disadvantageous for the customer. It cost 2.8 billion pounds to build THORP (£ 1993).This A number of companies therefore have accused BNFL exceeded the original construction budget by a factor of of raising the prices as a consequence of its not having three. It was however assumed that this amount would been able to maintain the reprocessing schedule specified be recouped by income earned from the reprocessing in the contract. In May 2001, the British newspaper The of foreign fuel. BNFL expected the plant to realise profits Independent revealed that several companies from of 50 million pounds annually, or 500 million pounds Germany, Japan, Switzerland, The Netherlands and Italy during the first ten years.27 Yet even a profit of 500 were threatening to break reprocessing contracts with million pounds would only cover 18 percent of the THORP valued at six million pounds.29 The parties even- actual construction costs for THORP. tually reached agreement for a temporary solution, but the conflict has recently flared up again. 2.3.3 Contracts Nor have the technical problems at THORP yet come to When THORP began production in March 1994, BNFL an end. In 2002 BNFL had to make comprehensive repairs had secured a certain number of so-called baseload to the facility, which in turn led to further delays in contracts to reprocess about 7 000 tonnes of spent handling the customers' fuel.30 In April 2003 and entering nuclear fuel. This was fuel that was to be reprocessed its tenth year of operations, THORP had not managed over the course of the facility's first ten years of to reprocess more than 4500 tons of the 7000 tonnes operation. Over 4 000 tonnes of this fuel originated that BNFL had committed itself to in its baseload from foreign customers from eight different countries. contracts (these contracts account for 64 percent of the The remaining contracts came from British clients.28 facility's contracts). Hence if THORP is to meet the Almost 90 percent of the contracts were signed more terms of the agreements it has entered into, it must than ten years before the facility was completed, and a process more than 2000 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel third of the foreign contracts were signed prior to 1976. within the next two years. However, with an annual maximum capacity of 850 tonnes a year, this will be practically impossible. Much of the fuel that awaits reprocessing has a higher burn-up than the fuel that was processed there before. This factor can cause further delays, not to mention problems of operating the facility within the permitted parameters for radioactive discharges (see chapter 8). BNFL thus has some things to explain to its customers. At the same time, new threats are starting to come in from the company's German customers who are now considering buying their way out of the old contracts. Table 2: BNFL's contracts for THORP as of 1993 One of these companies is Germany's largest nuclear (Source: Berkhout, F., 1993 / 1997) company E.ON Energie AG. According to the journal Nuclear Fuel, German companies have discovered that it 2.3.4 Delays would be cheaper for them to take responsibility for According to the original plan, BNFL was to have their spent nuclear fuel themselves than to send it to reprocessed all of the fuel covered under the baseload Sellafield. If the contracts are cancelled, the German fuel contracts by April 2004. However, technical problems will be stored in Germany prior to future disposal in a have delayed reprocessing activities at THORP,and BNFL permanent repository there.Two other German power has been forced to admit that it will not be possible to companies, RWE-AG and HEW-AG, bought their way reprocess all of the baseload contracts by the April 2004 out of similar contracts with Sellafield in the middle of deadline. Through negotiations with its baseload the 1990s.31 customers the company has been granted another year Furthermore, BNFL's largest reprocessing customer, and has a new deadline of April 2005. British Energy, has signalled that it is considering ending Several of the baseload contracts BNFL signed in the reprocessing activities, and has expressed interest in an

26 BNFL Annual Report & Accounts 2000: p. 18 29 The Independent, 13.05.2001. 27 Greenpeace International, 1993:The THORP papers. 30 HM Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, March 2002: Sellafield Quarterly Report. 28 Forwood, M., 2001. 31 Nuclear Fuel,Vol. 28, No. 4, 17.02.2003.

22 One of the veterans at the Sellafield facility, Phil Hindmarch, in the almost 40 year old B205 plant agreement whereby BNFL stores British Energy's spent during a visit in 1998. fuel at Sellafield only temporarily.The director of British Energy stated on an earlier occasion that his company considers reprocessing to be "economic nonsense".32 British Energy has already built an intermediate storage facility to accommodate 2000 tonnes of spent AGR fuel, and currently stores all of the reactor fuel from the Torness power plant in Scotland. Given the problems that BNFL has been experiencing in fulfilling its contracts, it has become extremely difficult for the company to secure new contracts for the next decade. In addition, the hopes of developing a plutonium-powered nuclear reactor (Fast Breeders) has been pushed 40 to 50 years into the future, if they even materialise at all.The contracts that BNFL has signed for the next decade have therefore been largely entered into with domestic customers.33 The present chairman of BNFL, Hugh R. Collum, has Table 3: Amounts of fuel reprocessed at THORP in relation to objectives admitted that it looks doubtful that BNFL will be able to (source: Forwood, M., 2001, 2003.) secure any new THORP contracts with German companies, and that they are preparing to examine *Annual goals have been estimated from the assumption that all fuel shall have been processed by 34 April 2005. Up until fiscal year 2001/2002 the goal was that the fuel was to be processed by April alternatives to reprocessing. Germany and Japan have 2004.Allowances have been made for this adjustment in the table.

32 The Independent, 14.05.2001. 33 BNFL, 1999: Annual Report & Accounts 1998, page 16. 34 The Independent, 31.03.2000.

23 been BNFL's largest customers outside Great Britain. The absence of contracts with these countries will make further operation of THORP almost impossible.

2.3.5 Decommissioning THORP In 1992, BNFL estimated that it would cost 900 million pounds to decommission THORP. According to plan, THORP was to be decommissioned 50 years after the shutting down of the facility.This estimate is made from the starting point that the facility was to operated for 25 years and shut down before 2020.35 The Germans shut down their pilot project in reprocessing at Karlsruhe (WAK) in 1991 and have estimated the costs of decommissioning to 600 million pounds.36 WAK was much smaller than THORP with a capacity that was less than five percent that of the British facility.

35 BNFL, 1999: Annual Report & Accounts 1998, page 16. 36 The Independent, 31.03.2000.

24 Chapter 3 MOX production MOX production

In December 2001, the world's largest facility for the German radiation authorities discovered elevated radia- production of Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX) opened at tion values on the outside of BNFL's transport flasks.40 Sellafield. MOX is a special kind of nuclear fuel that is Internally the scandal led to several dismissals, as well as made of new uranium and reprocessed plutonium.The a review of all the existing safety procedures. BNFL's Sellafield MOX Plant (SMP) is designed to produce 300 chief executive, John Taylor, resigned his position. tonnes of MOX fuel a year.As of August 2003, SMP had In 1999, Sweden had plans to send 4.8 tonnes of spent yet to produce a single completed MOX fuel assembly. reactor fuel from its first research reactor R1 to Sellafield In addition to SMP,there is also a MOX research facility for reprocessing. However, in the aftermath of the falsifi- at Sellafield - the MOX Demonstration Facility (MDF). cation scandal, the Swedish minister of the environment, Kjell Larsson, stated that a business deal with Sellafield 3.1 would be 'very difficult, if not impossible' to justify41 MOX-Demonstration Facility (MDF) In April 2001, Germany lifted its moratorium on repro- BNFL first began to produce MOX fuel at Sellafield in cessing at Sellafield, and Switzerland followed suit in May.42 1993. It was manufactured in the MOX Demonstration Trade relations with Japan have also returned to normal Facility (MDF), a facility which today is only being used after BNFL brought back the controversial MOX fuel for purposes of research. However, in the 1990s, MOX the company had delivered to Kansai three years earlier. fuel from MDF was delivered to customers in All commercial activity at MDF has ceased, and the Switzerland and Germany. facility is now utilised only for purposes of research.43 In the autumn of 1999, an agreement was made to deliver MOX fuel from MDF to the Japanese company Kansai 3.2 Electric Power Company.The first transport of MOX was Sellafield MOX Plant (SMP) transported by sea to Japan in July 1999. However, in In 1996, BNFL completed construction of the Sellafield September of the same year, it was discovered that the MOX Plant (SMP), a new MOX factory with an annual safety analyses for BNFL's MOX fuel had been falsified, production capacity of 300 tonnes of MOX fuel. The and by December it became clear that this falsification factory cost £482 million to realise. SMP first underwent also applied to the fuel that had been delivered to Japan. a test period in which it produced ordinary uranium Consequently, Kansai Electric Power Company refused oxide fuel. By the end of 2000, the factory had produced to utilise the fuel, and demanded that BNFL immediately 150 000 UO2 pellets (one fuel rod consists of several take it back. At the same time the Japanese government such pellets). In 2001, BNFL was granted permission by issued a temporary moratorium on all business relations British authorities to utilise plutonium oxide in order to with BNFL.37 manufacture MOX. Because SMP will utilise reprocessed In March 2000, the Swiss Nuclear Safety Inspectorate uranium and plutonium from THORP in its production (HSK) also complained about insufficient safety infor- of MOX, the plant is important to future operations at mation about the MOX pellets in the fuel delivered by the entire Sellafield plant.44 BNFL-Sellafield to Swiss customers. Prior to this, a weak- A number of experts are concerned that new MOX fuel ness was discovered in some of the cladding of the MOX can easily be utilised by terrorists to construct so-called fuel delivered by BNFL to the Swiss Beznau reactor. In "dirty bombs", and have consequently advised against view of this defect, HSK forbade all import and use of granting the new MOX factory a licence.This conclusion MOX fuel from BNFL. Even before this, the country had was also reached in a report by Oxford Research instituted a moratorium against the export of fuel to Group, which was commissioned by the British Ministry Sellafield. HSK said that BNFL would have to show of the Environment.45 'substantial improvements' before the moratorium An independent report commissioned by the British could be lifted.38 government shows that at best, SMP will earn only 216 When the scandal broke, British nuclear inspectors of the 460 million pounds it cost to build the plant.46 discovered that operators at MDF had been falsifying the The Irish government has vigorously protested against safety analyses of the fuel since 1996. In a report from SMP and has brought two court cases against Great the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII), it was stated Britain in connection with the opening of the new plant. that BNFL had 'a serious safety culture problem' and The first court case concerned Great Britain's respon- 'systematic management failure'.39 sibility under the terms of the OSPAR convention to As a result of the scandal, Germany too prohibited any inform neighbouring countries about this type of plant. further import of MOX fuel from Sellafield. Like Ireland claims that the British government had withheld Switzerland, Germany had also instituted a moratorium information that was needed for an analysis as to the on sending fuel to be reprocessed at Sellafield after necessity of opening such a plant. Furthermore, Ireland

37 BBC News, 20.03.2000. 40 The Independent, 13.04.2001. 38 Greenpeace International, 17.04.2000. 41 ENDS Daily March 1, 2000. 39 The Daily Telegraph, 01.04.2001. 42 BNFL, 29.05.2001: Shipments of Nuclear Material between Switzerland and the UK. 43 BNFL Annual Report and Accounts 2000, pp. 18-19. 44 The Independent, 25.05.2001 45 The Guardian, 31.05.2001. 26 46 BNFL press release, 27.07.2001. The village of Seascale, south of charged that the plant was in violation of certain provisions E.ON AG. BNFL believes that the contract with E.ON the Sellafield Plant. in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), will make up 15 percent of SMP's capacity.According to pointing out that the increasing number of MOX fuel Greenpeace, the E.ON contract entails converting 5.8 transports that will come with the plant constitute an tonnes of German plutonium to MOX. As of today, unacceptable risk to the environment. German companies have 13.6 tonnes of plutonium Both cases have been heard in the permanent court of stored at Sellafield.47 arbitration at The Hague.While the court dismissed the Two other contracts have also been negotiated, one first case in early July 2003, the second case is still under with the Swedish concern OKG AB, the other with the arbitration. Thus far in the process, the tribunal has Swiss power company Nordostschweizerische Kraftwerke criticised Great Britain for its lack of co-operation with AG. BNFL has yet to negotiate any MOX contracts with Ireland concerning nuclear safety, and has ordered the any Japanese companies. A new setback between BNFL two countries to work together more closely on safety. and its Japanese customers occurred in the Spring of 2001 when citizens living near Japan's largest nuclear 3.2.1 Contracts power plant voted in a referendum against the use of As of July 2003, BNFL had secured half the number of MOX fuel.48 contracts needed to run SMP for the first ten years.The largest contract is with the German Power Company

47 The Guardian, 25.05.2002. 48 The Independent, 28.05.2001

27 The OKG AB contract The Swedish OKG AB contract concerns 850 kg of Swedish plutonium that is being stored at Sellafield today. This plutonium is a product of Swedish nuclear fuel and was sent to Sellafield between 1975 and 1982. It was reprocessed as late as 1997. Sweden altered its policy for handling spent reactor fuel in the middle of the 1980s, and no longer sends fuel to Sellafield. In 1996, the Swedish government went to great lengths to have the Swedish nuclear fuel returned to Sweden without having it reprocessed.49 According to an exchange of letters between the British Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate (SKI) there were no technical or regulatory obstacles in the way to prevent the return of the fuel. However, negotiations to return the Swedish fuel stranded in 1997 when BNFL reprocessed the Swedish fuel, 140 tonnes in all. There is speculation as to whether BNFL did this to ensure itself future MOX contracts. In December 2002 the Swedish government granted OKG AB permission to utilise MOX fuel in the Oskarshamn nuclear power plant. It is unknown when this fuel will be transported to Sweden.

Swiss contracts The first MOX fuel to be produced at SMP will be sent to the Swiss Beznau nuclear power plant, a power plant that is owned and operated by Nordostschweizerische Kraftwerke AG and runs two Westinghouse pressurised water reactors. Transports of Swiss MOX fuel will be sent from BNFL's pier in Workington, north of Sellafield. It is here that the fuel will be loaded on board the BNFL transport ship Atlantic Osprey. In contrast to BNFL's other vessels, Atlantic Osprey has only a single hull and no auxiliary motor in the event of the engine seizing up. Other transports by sea from Sellafield as a rule go from BNFL's private pier at Barrow, which is better equipped with respect to nuclear safety.50

49 Reuters, 22.02.1996. 50 Forwood, M., 2002:The Export of MOX Fuel to Switzerland.

28 Chapter 4 Historic discharges Historic discharges

Since its opening in 1951, there have been substantial of the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), radioactive discharges to both the air and sea from which is the national authority that advises on maximum Sellafield.The first discharges came with and were a direct permissible radiation doses to the British population. result of the British nuclear weapons programme; exact information concerning the quantity and nature of these 4.2 discharges is not available.The attitude of Prime Minister The Windscale fire in 1957 Clement Attlee when the first discharge pipe was built In the early morning of October 10, 1957, the operators is very revealing: he wanted as little fuss as possible at Windscale Pile No.1 began work to release the energy about the discharges, as this would draw attention that had accumulated in the graphite of the reactor towards the plant.51 (Wigner energy). In that the bombardment of neutrons It is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural within the reactor caused large amounts of energy to Affairs (DEFRA) that issues the authorisations for radio- accumulate in the form of heat inside the graphite, this active discharges. Permits are granted under the guidelines was a normal procedure that needed to be regularly of the Radioactive Substances Act of 1993 (RAS 1993). performed. Otherwise the build-up of heat within the Sellafield has several licenses permitting discharges into graphite would eventually start a fire. the air, sea and on shore.The current discharge authori- The exact reason for the fire is still not known, but the sation went into effect January 1, 1994, but has been most probable cause appears to be that the operators revised several times since then. The most recent did not perform the routine procedure with sufficient care. revision of radioactive discharges into air and water was Furthermore there were no good safety procedures made in November 1999, and went into effect on governing how the operation should be executed. The January 1, 2000. New limitations on radioactive discharges reactor was completely ablaze before the alarm sounded. have been proposed and as of July 2003 were under The operators tried to draw out the reactor's fuel discussion inside the department. elements but the operation took too long. The result was an extensive fire inside the reactor core, which 4.1 lasted for more than 24 hours.53 Radioactive discharges 1951-1964 The fire led to two major releases of radioactivity to the Early in the 1950s, Great Britain carried out experiments air. The first large release occurred when the natural in which large amounts of radioactivity were deliberately uranium inside the reactor core caught fire.The second discharged into the Irish Sea.The purpose was to study occurred early on Friday, October 11, when the reactor the effect of all the different radioactive substances on the was showered with water in an attempt to extinguish environment, as well as how they behaved in relation to the fire. A huge cloud of steam transported radioactive each other.The lead scientist on the experiment, Dr. John particles and gases up into the air.The radioactive cloud Dunster, was a physicist at the UKAEA, and at the time drifted southwards, over most of England, and continued he was in charge of Sellafield. In 1958, at the second UN over Europe.At about 11 a.m. the same day, the fire was conference concerning peaceful uses of nuclear energy, under control. Over 20 percent of the reactor core Dunster told UN delegates about the experiment: were damaged in the fire.54 Workers at the Sellafield facility itself were exposed to radiation doses 150 times "The intention has been to discharge fairly substantial higher than the prescribed dose limit, while certain amounts of radioactivity … the aims of this experiment individuals among the local inhabitants were exposed to would have been defeated if the level of radioactivity radiation doses 10 times higher than the maximum discharged had been kept to a minimum."52 lifetime doses. Though UKAEA knew about the high radiation levels, it was nevertheless decided not to He continued, explaining that the discharges had been: evacuate the population.55 The day after the fire, the authorities halted the distri- "… high enough to obtain detectable levels in samples of bution of milk from 17 farms in the district, and on fish, seaweed and shore sand, and the experiment is still October 12, the Medical Research Council ruled that proceeding. In 1956 the rate of discharge of radioactivity milk containing more than 3 700 Bq per litre should not was deliberately increased, partly to dispose of unwanted be used. It was assumed that this limit would affect all waste, but principally to yield better experimental data." milk production in an area of approximately 500 km2; consequently, all milk from this entire area was recalled. In more recent years, it has become clear that the exper- The activity measured in one of the milk samples was as iment started in May 1952 and continued well into the high as 50 000 Bq per litre, coming from a farm located decade. In the mid of the 1980s, Dunster became director 15 kilometres away from the reactor. Iodine absorption

51 Berkhout, F., 1991, page 140. 53 May, J., 1990, page 116. 52 May, J., 1990, page 119. 54 The Daily Telegraph, 01.01 1988. 55 May, J., 1990, page 116.

30 Information about the Windscale to the pancreas was also observed, with the highest million litres of milk containing iodine-131 were dumped fire in 1957 was kept secret until 1988. measured dose estimated to be 160 mGy.56 into the ocean or nearby rivers.59 However, three days after the drastic measures went Efforts have been made to estimate the extent of the into effect, it was discovered that some of the milk radioactive releases. It is believed that the accident led to produced outside the most exposed area was also a release of between 600 and 1,000 TBq of iodine-131, contaminated with iodine-137. Milk samples taken from between 444 and 596 TBq of tellurium-132, between a farm in Grasmere in the Lake District showed concen- 22.2 and 45.5 TBq of caesium-137 and about 0.2 TBq of trations of between 4 400 Bq per litre and 6 600 Bq per strontium-90.60 litre.Yet despite these discoveries, the milk was neverthe- The British Prime Minister at the time, Harold MacMillan, less distributed to the market.The papers documenting suppressed all technical information concerning the these figures were classified by the government so as to accident. He feared that the conclusions of the accident avoid "unnecessarily alarming" the population.57 report - that the accident occurred as a consequence of The majority of the restrictions on milk distribution operator negligence and poor instrumentation, as well were lifted on November 4 in the same year, while the as the report's reference to an earlier accident in 1952 remaining restrictions were cancelled on November 23, - would adversely affect the people's confidence in the only about a month after the accident.58 In all, about two nuclear energy programme, and postpone the develop-

56 May, J., 1990, page 116. 59 Arnold, L., 1992, page 61. Henriksen,T., 1993, page 114. 57 The Daily Telegraph, 01.01 1988. 60 May, J., 1990, page 116 58 May, J., 1990, page 116. 61 Arnold, L., 1992, page. 185. Henriksen,T., 1993: p. 114.

31 Every day millions of litres of radioactive waste is ment of British nuclear weapons. Macmillan declared that increased dramatically.The main reason for this was the discharged through this pipeline at Sellafield. complete openness about the accident would jeopardise discharges of alpha activity originating from a new national security.61 reprocessing plant (B205) that UKAEA had opened in It was 25 years before official estimates of the accident's 1964. This facility was twice the size of the B204 plant, effects on the health of local inhabitants were made public. and at the time was producing weapons-grade pluto- In 1982, the British National Radiological Protection nium. The term alpha activity discharges is a collective Board issued a report describing the full truth about the term for discharges of radionuclides that release alpha Windscale accident. It was estimated that 32 deaths and radiation such as plutonium and americum-241, for at least 260 cases of cancer could be attributed to the example. These substances are highly radiotoxic, and fire.62 However, independent experts maintain that the consumption of even a tiny amount can be lethal. fire in actual fact led to over a thousand deaths.63 In the mid 1960s, the discharges of radiation increased In an attempt to prevent negative associations with the so dramatically that UKAEA, which was running the plant, UKAEA changed the name of the plant from plant at the time, had to apply for permission to Windscale to Sellafield after the accident - a name that discharge alpha activity in excess of the 66.6 TBq per today carries just as many negative connotations as its year that had been originally established. In addition to predecessor did. the discharges from the reprocessing plant, discharges of radiation from the fuel storage also added to the high 4.3 discharges. Furthermore, in the 1960s and 70s, the Discharges in the period 1964-1990 coolant water from the fuel reservoir was pumped In the 1960s and 70s radioactive discharges from Sellafield straight into the sea.

61 The Daily Telegraph, 01.01.1988. 62 May, J., 1990. 63 Berkhout, F., 1991: pp. 148-149.

32 4.3.1 The formation of BNFL and the from the plant reached their peak. In the five-year period introduction of discharge monitoring from 1974 to 1978, Sellafield released more than 40,000 In the time that Sellafield was a military facility, there was TBq of beta emitters. From 1968 to 1978, the plant is no monitoring of discharges. In principle, an increase of believed to have released almost 1000 TBq of alpha unmonitored discharges was permitted until 1971 when emitters. In 1973 alone, the plant released over 180 TBq BNFL was formed and assumed responsibility for running of alpha emitters.70 Compared to the French reprocessing the reprocessing facility. However, even when formal plant at La Hague, Sellafield in this period exceeded the monitoring was introduced, it did not necessarily lead to French facility's releases of beta emitters by a factor of actual monitoring of radiation releases in practice. All eight and the highly radiotoxic alpha emitters by as much limitations governing the permitted amounts of radio- as 200 times more.71 active discharge from the facility were in reality a result The discharges of caesium-137 and plutonium were also of negotiations between BNFL and the government and exceedingly high in the 1970s. In the years from 1974 to were never formally written down in a formal discharge permit.64 Nor was there any specific discharging limits for the individual nuclides, but instead a sort of "blanket permit" that established certain limits for the total alpha and beta discharges, but no limits for the individual nuclides. In a period where the discharges might be low for one given nuclide meant that one could thereby increase the discharges of the other nuclides with the same properties. However, after 1970, specific restrictions on strontium-90 and ruthenium-106 were introduced.65 Discharges of transuranic elements such as plutonium were not monitored until 1973. These were discharges that were covered in theory by the discharge permit, but which in practice were never monitored. Full monitoring of radioactive discharges from the facility was not introduced until the Site Ion Exchange Plant (SIXEP) purification facility was installed in 1984.66 The purpose Table 4 of SIXEP is to cleanse the cooling water in the storage 1978 the annual discharges of caesium-137 from the Beta discharges from Sellafield in the period 1971 to 1978. pools for spent nuclear fuel. facility were well over 4 000 TBq.The discharges of plutonium in the same period were between 45 and 60 TBq 4.3.2 Discharges in the 1970s a year - also very high figures.72 Over the course of these By 1970, British authorities had granted UKAEA a permit five years, doubly the amount of plutonium was discharged to increase the limit for such highly radiotoxic alpha from Sellafield as was released during the Chernobyl emitters as plutonium-239 and americium-241 by almost accident of 1986 in which approximately 100 TBq of Table 5 Alpha discharges from Sellafield 350 percent, from 66 TBq to 222 TBq.67 When BNFL plutonium was discharged.73 in the period 1971 to 1978. took over the plant, the total radioactive alpha discharges were running at almost 100 TBq a year. On an annual basis Sellafield was releasing over 50 TBq of plutonium, along with almost 6 000 TBq of beta emitters in addition.68 Yet one of BNFL's first acts after taking over the plant was apply for permission to increase the discharges even further. Originally the department desired to limit the discharges of caesium-137 to 370 TBq per quarter, but after intense lobbying from BNFL, the authorities consented to increase the upper limit to 555 TBq per quarter. The reason given was the tremendous corrosion problems BNFL were experiencing with spent Magnox fuel; furthermore it would be extremely expensive to reduce the high caesium discharges.69 In the middle of the 1970s the radioactive discharges

64 Sumner, D., et al., 2000, page 415. 70 BNFL 2000: Annual Report on Discharges and Monitoring of 65 Ibid, page 416. the Environment 1999, page 29. 66 Berkhout, F., 1991, page 150. 71 Bunyard, P., 1986:The Sellafield Discharges. 67 Bunyard, P., 1986:The Sellafield Discharges. 72 BNFL 2000: Annual Report on Discharges and Monitoring of 68 BNFL 2000: Annual Report on Discharges and Monitoring of the Environment 1999, page 29. the Environment 1999, page 29. 73 AMAP,1997, page 114. 69 Bunyard, P., 1986:The Sellafield Discharges. 33 using the beaches remained in effect until the following summer. The authorities maintained that they had not been informed of the accident until a week after it had happened. Following a police investigation of the case, BNFL was fined £10,000 and also had to pay legal costs amounting to £60,000.76 In the early 1980s, British researchers discovered that the plutonium content in shellfish from off the coast of Sellafield was five times higher than normal. As a result, the radiation contribution from plutonium to the so-called "critical group" (the population group considered to be most exposed to radiation doses resulting from the Sellafield discharges) was adjusted by a factor of 15. In 1984 the British Waste Management Advisory Committee asserted that the population living in certain areas close to Sellafield, by mere means of their food intake alone would receive 69 percent of the critical dose limits as established by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Furthermore, researchers Following an operational error in the Department of Environmental Studies maintained in 1983, 20 kilometres of the that the population in the local vicinity of Sellafield area shoreline outside Sellafield had to be closed off due to was also being exposed to radiation through fission radioactive contamination. products washed ashore.They estimated that 45 percent of the total amount of radiotoxic alpha emitters released By the close of the 1970s, the discharges of technetium-99 in the period 1968 to 1978 were americium-241 which (Tc-99) were also high. In the three-year period from was washed up on the beaches with the tidewater in 1978 to 1980, Sellafield released nearly 300 TBq of Tc- fine sand and other sediments, or else in the form of sea 99. However, throughout the 1980s, much of the liquid mist which the population might then inhale.77 waste from the Magnox plant was stored in large pools As a consequence of the discharges, the entire coastline on land, and the discharges of Tc-99 fell drastically to from Maryport in the north to Wyre in the south was about 6 TBq a year. Discharges remained at this level badly contaminated by americium-241. The same until 1994 when BNFL began to discharge the stored researchers learned that plutonium had a greater ability waste, at which point the discharges exceeded the to bind to organic material on the bottom of the sea than figures from the 1970s (see Chapter 7). was previously believed. Hence plutonium could reach humans more easily through the food chain than if it 4.3.3 Discharges in the 1980s remained undisturbed in non-organic sediments. In view Even though discharges from the Sellafield facility were of these new findings, BNFL announced that it would dramatically reduced at the beginning of the 1980s, the spend £10 million to reduce the discharges of plutonium plant nevertheless remained Europe's worst nuclear and americium from 37 TBq per year to about 7 TBq per polluter - despite BNFL having dealt with the most serious year. corrosion problems related to spent nuclear fuel.74 In 1984, The largest discharge reduction measures came in the 90 percent of the British population's annual radiation mid 1980s, when BNFL installed a new cleansing plant, dose from nuclear facilities was attributable to Sellafield. the Salt Evaporator and Site Ion Exchange Effluent Plant This figure fell to 60 percent in 1987.75 (SIXEP). Discharges of beta-emitters, among other sub- On November 18, 1983 an accident in BNFL's Magnox stances, then fell from about 575 TBq in 1985 to about reprocessing facility led to uncontrolled discharges of 50 TBq in 1992. large amounts of radioactivity to the sea.The discharge spread along the coast and contaminated the beaches in 4.4 the area.The radioactivity in seaweed along the coastline Discharges in the last ten years was discovered to be so high that the Department for Discharges from Sellafield in more recent years originate Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) decided mainly from the reprocessing plants THORP and B205. to cordon off over 20 kilometres of the shoreline.A major In addition, there are radioactive discharges connected effort to clean up the beaches began, and restrictions on to decommissioning work in progress in the area and

74 Bunyard, P., 1986:The Sellafield Discharges. 76 Berkhout, F., 1991, page. 171. 75 Sumner, D. et al, 2000, page 417. 77 Bunyard, P., 1986:The Sellafield Discharges.

34 from the storage facilities for spent reactor fuel.The large amounts of radioactivity remaining after reprocessing activities are now largely handled at a separate purification plant on the site (EARP). Discharges from the storage pools for spent reactor fuel are purified in a separate plant (SIXEP). However, it is both difficult and expensive to eliminate all radioactivity. For example, none of the plants are capable of removing the radioactive substance technetium-99, which is a waste product from reprocessing. These isotopes are consequently discharged directly into the Irish Sea. High-level liquid waste left over from reprocessing is vitrified and stored at the facility. Some of the intermediate-level liquid wastes are also treated before being discharged into the sea. Coolant water from the storage facilities for Magnox fuel is cleansed of caesium-137 and Table 6 strontium-90. Low-level liquid wastes are simply discharged Discharges of alpha radiation untreated through a pipe directly into the sea.78 from Sellafield, measured in GBq. With the opening of the new THORP reprocessing facility, BNFL also installed a new purification plant, the Enhanced Actinide Removal Plant (EARP). Since this plant entered operation in 1994, discharges of both alpha and beta activity have decreased. The total alpha discharges from Sellafield have fallen from 400 GBq in 1995 to 120 GBq in 1999.79 In addition to the discharges mentioned above, there are discharges from the plant's sewage pipes, which drain directly into the sea. In 2000, these discharges consisted respectively of 0.035 GBq of alpha particles and 0.49 GBq of beta particles.80 These discharges are expected to increase slightly when the system of pipelines is adjusted to drain more rainwater from a larger area of the facility site directly into the sewer.

Table 7 Discharges of beta radiation from Sellafield, measured in TBq.

78 Ibid. 79 BNFL, 2001: Annual Report on Discharges and Monitoring of the Environment in the UK, 2000, page 23. 80 Ibid, page 25. 35 36 Chapter 5 Aerial discharges Aerial discharges

Several of the different plants at Sellafield release radio- The following radionuclides have higher discharge ceilings active effluents to the atmosphere.The most major dis- that was originally proposed (percentages higher): charges come from the ventilation systems at THORP strontium-90 (4%); ruthenium-106 (100%); antimon-125 which releases tritium, carbon-14, krypton-85, (64%); caesium-137 (4%); plutonium-alpha (19%); strontium-90, ruthenium-106, iodine-129, caesium-137, plutonium-241 (3%); americium-241 and curium-241 americium-241 and argon-41 as well as small amounts (9%).81 of plutonium. The Environment Agency (EA) has made a three year 5.1 review of the collective discharges from Sellafield, and in Discharges from THORP August 2002 presented its proposal for new discharge Some of the largest discharges from Sellafield come from limits. As of December 2003, the new proposal was still THORP. However, the annual discharges from THORP under discussion in the Ministry of Health and at the depend on how much nuclear fuel is treated. This is Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs especially true for discharges of radioactive tritium (H-3). (DEFRA). The present discharge permit for tritium from THORP is In EA's proposal for new discharge limits, several of the set at 33 TBq/year.This permit was granted by DEFRA limits have been adjusted upwards compared to the and took effect January 17, 1994.The permit is based on original proposal that had been sent out for hearing in processing between 400 and 8000 tonnes of fuel.82 If more the fall of 2001. In this most recent proposal, BNFL has fuel is reprocessed, the permit is for 43 TBq a year, while managed to negotiate higher limits both for the total for amounts of 100-400 tonnes of reprocessed fuel, the alpha discharges and total beta discharges to the air.The discharge limit is 22 TBq a year.83 current proposed discharge limits are now respectively So far, BNFL has managed to keep the discharges within 76 and 68 percent higher than they were in the proposal the limitations of the permits, but this is largely due to considered in the hearings. In addition, EA has removed the fact that THORP has not processed as much nuclear the discharge limits for cobalt-60. In the proposal sub- fuel as was expected. With the new goals to reprocess mitted to the hearing committees, the discharge limits more than 1000 tonnes of fuel a year, it may be difficult lay far below the figures that will now be implemented. to stay within the limits. Furthermore, much of the fuel This may have weakened the democratic process in the that will be reprocessed in the next few years has a handling of the matter. BNFL has thereby come out of higher burn-up and a shorter cooling time than the fuel the hearings victorious and won support for its request that was processed at THORP before; hence this could for a much higher ceiling on discharges than was lead to increased discharges. originally proposed. BNFL projections for future discharges indicate that the

Table 8: Current discharge permits from Sellafield to the air and proposed changes from EA (Source: EA 2002).

81 Environment Agency, 2001 / 2002, in Amundsen, I., et al, 2003. 82 BNFL, 2001: Discharge and Monitoring of the Environment in the UK 2000, page 26. 83 Forwood, M., 2001. 38 Annual discharges from Sellafield company may have problems staying within the risk that this could constrain future THORP's business as depend on how much nuclear fuel is processed at THORP. boundaries of the discharge permits. BNFL is planning a there is a high degree of uncertainty in Ru-106 projections large increase in its tritium discharges in the coming due to its relatively short half-life (extreme sensitivity to years and has stated on several occasions that the fuel cooling variations) and the current lack of experience existing discharge limits are too strict. If BFNL is to remain in processing burn-up/short cooled fuels through within the boundaries of its discharge permits, it would THORP." BNFL writes further, "Any further limit reduc- appear that it would have to reprocess less fuel than tions at this time would clearly not be appropriate." originally planned, thereby further irritating already Earlier discharge estimates from THORP were made on exasperated customers.The alternative is to violate the the basis of fuel that had been standing in coolant for up established discharge limits. to twelve years. In the coming years BNFL will reprocess In EA's most recent discharge assessment for Sellafield, fuel that has only had a five year cooling period and one of the proposals is to lower the discharge limits for which has a much higher burn-up than the fuel the Ru-106 from THORP from 50 GBq/year to 37 GBq/year. company has handled before. This too could lead to According to BNFL, this step could have the effect of higher discharges.84 preventing the company from achieving the reprocessing targets it has set for itself. BNFL writes, "There is a

84 BNFL 2000: Review of discharges and disposal of radioactive waste, pp. 10-11.

39 40 Chapter 6 Radioactive contamination Radioactive contamination

The radioactivity that is released from Sellafield is trans- Environment Agency has its own monitoring programme mitted to the natural environment in the entire Irish Sea. for radioactive waste in the environs surrounding Sellafield. Radioactive isotopes released from Sellafield may be Part of this programme includes taking measurements of found in larger or smaller concentrations both in radioactivity along beaches in Cumbria, in the seawater seafood such as fish, shellfish and crabs, as well as in along the coast, as well as in rivers and lakes further other parts of the natural environment such as seawater, inland. Calculations are also made of radiation doses to sediments and in the grass onshore. Concentrations of people walking along the beaches. radioactivity in the marine environment for the most Another monitoring programme is being carried out by part reflect discharges to the sea, while concentrations the British Food Standards Agency (FSA) in co-operation of radioactivity onshore may be largely attributed to with the Scottish Environment Protections Agency (SEPA). releases of radioactivity to the air. However, there is This programme tracks radioactive contamination in some overlap as radionuclides can be transported from plants and animals both on land and in the water in the the sea to land with tidewater motions, sea mist and area around the Sellafield facility. In addition, BNFL has its other sea-to-shore processes. Concentrations of own monitoring programme. This chapter endeavours plutonium, caesium-137 and americium-241 are mostly to summarise the information from the different moni- due to historical discharges.85 toring programmes.

Concentrations of Cs-137 Calculated Pu-239 and Pu-240 in the northwestern part of concentrations in sediments the Irish Sea (dry weight). outside Sellafield (dry weight). (Source: Ryan,T.P. et al, 2003.) (Source: Periáñez, R., 2001)

85 BNFL, 2000: Discharges and Monitoring of the Environment in the UK. Annual Report.

42 6.1 In more recent years there has been a greater recognition The Irish Sea that radioactive contamination can harm the environ- Radioactive releases to the sea from Sellafield end up in ment, even if it does not initially harm human beings. the Irish Sea.The Irish Sea is the 2400 km2 body of sea Today there is growing agreement that the environment between England and Ireland. It is partially enclosed with needs its own protection.The International Atomic Energy openings respectively only to the south and the north Authority (IAEA) now acknowledges the following: out to the English Channel and the North Atlantic.The fact that this body of seawater is partially enclosed prevents "There is a growing need to examine methods to explicitly the circulation of the water masses - and this in turn address the protection of the marine environment from reduces the effective amount of "fresh" water available radiation. The concept of sustainable development places to dilute the discharges of radioactivity in the Irish Sea. environmental protection on the equal footing with human Over the course of the summer months, a relatively protection, on the basis that it is necessary first to protect closed circulation is created, while the circulation increases the environment in order to protect human populations" somewhat during the winter months.86 (IAEA 1999).93 The Irish Sea today is the world's most radioactively contaminated marine area.87 According to the Quality 6.2 Status Report (QSR) for 2000 from OSPAR (a con- Diffusion vention for the protection of the environment in the The various radioactive substances that are discharged north-east Atlantic), the Irish Sea is polluted by about from Sellafield diffuse in the environment to different 200 kilograms of plutonium.88 Traces of artificial radio- degrees. Of all the radioactive decomposition products active substances may be found throughout the Irish Sea, that are released from the facility, technetium-99 (Tc-99) increasing in concentration the closer to the Sellafield is one of the most mobile substances. Tc-99 spreads facility the samples are taken.The levels of caesium-137 rapidly with the currents of the ocean: from the time in the seawater vary from approximately 500 Bq/m3 in that the element is released from Sellafield, it takes only the vicinity of the effluent pipes to 2 Bq/m3 in the open five months for the element to reach the coast of Ireland. sea. Caesium-137 is the artificial radionuclide that con- The discharge takes nine months to spread to the stitutes the principle source of human exposure to North Sea, and about 2.5 years to reach the Norwegian radiation. In terms of human exposure to artificial radio- coast.The discharges reach the Barents Sea in approxi- active elements, the most exposed population group in mately six years, but by that time the concentration has Ireland receives 60-70 percent of its radiation exposure been considerably reduced. from caesium-137 originating from activities at Sellafield.90 In 2000, concentrations of Tc-99 in the seawater just off For areas in the vicinity of Sellafield however, other the Sellafield facility were measured at 25 Bq/m3.94 For radionuclides such as technetium-99, plutonium-239, measurements taken along the Norwegian coast in the plutonium-240 and americium-241 play a more signifi- same year, the average concentration was 1.3 Bq/m3, cant role with respect to radiation doses to the most while in the North Sea, the concentration of Tc-99 exposed population group.91 varied from 0.22 Bq/m3 to 7.3 Bq/m3.95 It remains uncertain what kind of ecological impact this Heavier radioactive elements such as plutonium and kind of radioactive contamination can have on the caesium-137 sink for the most part to the bottom of the environment. Here is what appeared on the matter in Irish Sea. It is estimated that 85 percent of all plutonium the OSPAR Quality Status Report: that is released from Sellafield is lying in the sediments along the coast just off the facility. However, even if these "The interest in the behaviour of radionuclides in the marine substances do sink to the floor of the Irish Sea, they still environment has, until now been driven by the objective of spread in the environment, in part through the mobility protecting human health from ionising radiation through the of the sediments.This means that the sediments do not food chain.While the system of human radiological protection lie stable on the ocean floor, but tend to drift. Irish has been well developed through the adoption of inter- studies show that the sediments have a tendency to drift nationally recognised guidelines and standards, there are in a southwesterly direction towards Ireland. currently no internationally accepted radiological criteria for The heavier radioactive substances from Sellafield also the protection of marine flora and fauna. The assumption contaminate Scottish fjords. In the summer of 2003, an has been that man is the most radiosensitive organism and Irish research team reported high measurements for that if man is adequately protected, then other living things plutonium in the Scottish fjords Solway and Esk. The are also likely to be sufficiently protected."92 samples were taken the year before, and showed so- called "hot spots" of plutonium and americium-241

86 Hartnett, M., 2003, Appendix 7. 87 Nies, H. et al, 1999. 93 OSPAR, 2000, para 5.3.1.3. 88 OSPAR, 2000, para 4.9.3. 94 BNFL, 2001: Discharges and monitoring of the environment 2000, page 35. 89 OSPAR, 2000, para 4.9.2. 95 Kolstad, A.K., et al., 2002, page 9. 90 Ryan,T.P. et al, 2003. 91 OSPAR, 2000, para 4.9.5. 92 OSPAR, 2000, para 5.3.1.3. 43 (Am-241). Some measurements showed figures as high the Cumbria district in Northwest England in which as 15,000 Bq/kg of Am-241 and Pu. These were much Sellafield is located. However,EA presents better numerical higher values than the Scottish Environmental Protection documentation than BNFL.Table 9 shows concentrations Table 9 Agency had been able to assert before.The Irish research of alpha-emitting radionuclides in the sediments in Total amounts of alpha-emitting team had taken samples 80 cm down into the sediments Newbiggin, a few kilometres south of the Sellafield facility. radionuclides in sediments in West Cumbria (Newbiggin). and in this way had obtained different results than SEPA Table 9 shows that the concentrations of alpha-emitting Average values who had taken samples from the surface of the ocean radioactive contamination along this beach have more (Source: Environment Agency floor.96 than doubled since the beginning of the 1990s. 1999, 2000, 2001). Furthermore, figures from EA show that this is not an isolated event, but that the concentrations of alpha- emitting radionuclides are steadily increasing all along the Cumbrian coast. From 1999 to 2001, the concentrations of radioactive alpha-emitting radioactive contamination along the shoreline in West Cumbria had increased at 12 of 16 sample locations.The calculations show an average of measurements taken throughout the year.The figures from EA also show a tendency towards higher concentrations in the fall than in the spring. The figures from 2001 (Newbiggin) show alpha concentrations of 3.016 Bq/kg in the third quarter. Similarly the figures from 2000 show concentrations of alpha-emitting radionuclides at 3.469 Bq/kg in the fourth quarter.The numbers from 1999 also confirm this tendency. EA maintains that this increase in alpha-emitting radioactive contamination is probably due to the motion of old In the Barents Sea, plutonium concentrations of 12.8 contaminated sediments lying on the sea floor outside millibecquerel/kg have been measured. The primary Sellafield. The transport of these sediments plays an source of plutonium contamination in the Barents Sea is important role in the matter of contamination of the the fallout from nuclear testing, but the Norwegian entire Irish Sea. At times these sediments wash ashore, Radiation Protection Authority does not rule out the as for example during the spring flood or in situations of possibility that traces of plutonium might also originate drought whereby the plutonium and other radioactive from Sellafield.97 decomposition products can be spread with the wind or Table 10 be taken up in the food chain through grass and plants. Total amounts of beta-emitting 6.3 Even with comprehensive research on the subject, it is radionuclides in sediments in West Cumbria (Newbiggin). Sediments and sand samples still difficult to ascertain how these sediments are trans- Average values. Both BNFL and the Environment Agency take routine ported around the Irish Sea. However, the information (Source: Environment Agency, samples of the sand and sediments along the beaches of from Table 9 suggests that in certain locations the sedi- 1999, 2000, 2001). ments have a tendency to be transported ashore, thereby creating a problem of increased radioactive contamination in the district of Cumbria. A closer examination of the individual samples from Newbiggin shows that the radionuclides having the highest values are primarily the highly radiotoxic isotopes plutonium-239/240 and americium.241. Plutonium-239/240 and americium-241 are three of the most injurious radionuclides in existence, and inhalation of even the minutest amounts of alpha-emitting plutonium can cause cancer.The numerical data show values for plutonium of more than 850 Bq/kg in the fourth quarter of 2000.This is also confirmed by BNFL, which in 2000 reported plutonium concentrations in sludge of 820 Bq/kg in the same area (Ravenglass, five kilometres south of Sellafield).

96 Sunday Herald, 29.06.2003. 97 Rudjord, A.L., et al., 2001, page 22..

44 All fish caught in the Irish Sea The British Food Standards Agency (FSA) has made its None of the reports that Bellona has examined give any contain traces of radioactive contamination from Sellafield. own analyses as to the extent that sea-to-land transport information about the concentrations of plutonium and of radioactive contamination in the Ravenglass area affects other alpha-emitting radionuclides on the sea floor outside the food chain. The agency concluded that sea-to-land the Sellafield reprocessing plant itself. Such information is transports of this kind of contamination have not thus needed in order to be able to document the sources of far had any outcome on the food chain.98 However, it is future contamination. Nor has anyone attempted to esta- difficult to make any projections about the impact on the blish how great a degree the sediments on the ocean floor food chain in the coming centuries of the radioactive outside Sellafield are contaminated. OSPAR maintains that decomposition products that are now washing ashore the Irish Sea might be contaminated with more than 200 on the beaches. kilograms of plutonium.100 Earlier studies have also shown The Environment Agency has estimated that the average that plutonium and americium accumulate in the sedi- values of plutonium in the sediments along the beaches ments on the sea floor. British environmental authorities in West Cumbria are around 500 Bq/kg, while the have estimated that the 30 kilometre long coastal area averages for caesium-137 and americium are 346 Bq/kg outside Sellafield is contaminated with at least 240 TBq and 704 Bq/kg respectively.99 of Pu-239/240 and 290 TBq of americium-241.101 As may be seen from Table 10, beta contamination along the shoreline of Cumbria increased in the middle of the 6.4 1990s. However, it may be assumed that this was caused Contamination of marine for the most part by the substantial discharges of beta- plants and animals emitting technetium-99 (Tc-99). Because the ocean General study of how radioactive contamination is taken currents so readily transport Tc-99, it may also be seen up into the food chain constitutes part of the British that the radioactive concentrations in the environment Food Standard Agency's national monitoring program. have varied in relation to increased and reduced Consequently there is no monitoring program for the discharges of Tc-99 in the last few years. area specifically around Sellafield. This is somewhat

98 FSA/SEPA, 2002: Radioactivity in Food and the Environment, 2001, page 53. 100 OSPAR, 2000, para. 4.9.3. 99 EA, 2001: Radioactivity in the Environment. Report for 2001, page 46. 101 Kershaw, P.J., et al., 1992.

45 Table 11: Radioactive contamination in fish (selected radionuclides) Bq/kg wet weight. Sellafield coastal area (BNFL: 2001)

Table 12: Radioactive contamination in molluscs and crustaceans (selected radionuclides) Bq/kg wet weight. (BNFL 2001). *All samples collected in St Bees, four kilometres north of Sellafield, except for limpet, which was collected offshore.

unfortunate in that very few samples are taken of individual plant and animal species, and the samples that are taken are not analysed for all the pertinent isotopes. For example, in 2001, only one or two samples were taken of the different species of fish in the coastal area off Sellafield. None of the fish species were analysed for strontium-90. Samples of bladder wrack algae were only taken at two locations within the vicinity of the plant, and only four samples were taken of mussels. Some fish species were not analysed at all, including flounder and mackerel, which are also found on the coastal area outside the Sellafield plant. Flounder and mackerel are especially significant because flounder and mackerel are used for human consumption. In many cases therefore, the only available data comes Table 13: Values of Pu-239 and Pu-240 in mussels found outside Sellafield (Source: MAFF/FSA). from the operator of the facility, BNFL.Yet BNFL's own monitoring programme is limited to the most immediate areas around the facility, along with an area on the East Coast of the Isle of Man. As with the data from FSA, the BNFL material represents an average of several findings; however, unlike FSA, BNFL does not state how many samples it has taken of each individual biotope. This means that there may have been individual samples with much higher values than that which is presented in the reports. A weakness in the figures from both FSA and BNFL is that all of the samples are presented in wet weight form. Samples in dry weight would give higher values. Certain ocean products such as seaweed for example, are utilised or consumed in dry form; alternatively, as in certain areas around Sellafield, they are used as fertiliser. Hence measurements made in dry weight would be more Table 14: Values of Am-241 in mussels found outside Sellafield (Source: MAFF/FSA). illuminating.

46 Discharged plutonium readily The samples from the Sellafield coastal area were taken ification plant EARP in 1994, the concentrations of these builds up in mussels. from a coastline stretching 15 kilometres north and south radioactive substances in the marine environment remain of the Sellafield facility and 11 kilometres out to sea.This more or less constant. At the end of the 1990s, the applied to the samples taken by both BNFL and FSA concentration of Am-241, Pu-239 and Pu-240 in mussels In Table 11 it may be observed that flounder takes up found outside Sellafield increased, as shown by studies more of the historic Cs-137 waste which over the course carried out by FSA's forerunner,the Ministry of Agriculture of time has become mixed in with the sediments along Fisheries and Food (MAFF). New figures from FSA confirm the coast. The reason for this is that flounder for the that the values for these elements do not appear to be most part tends to stay down at the ocean floor. In sinking. (Table 13). addition it would appear that mackerel has a greater Table 15 shows similar tendencies. Even though the dis- proclivity to take up Tc-99 than other species of fish.The charges of radiotoxic plutonium have been reduced, the sample of cod was taken at Whitehaven. concentrations in the environment remain stable. Figures from FSA show fairly high concentrations of Tc- Increasing values for plutonium in molluscs such as mussels 99 in plaice and sole caught offshore from Sellafield, with have also been observed in Ireland. Studies carried out Tc-99 values of 64 and 67 Bq/kg respectively.102 by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII) The high concentrations of Tc-99 confirm that this show that the concentration of plutonium and americium nuclide readily builds up in molluscs and shellfish, in Irish mussels at Carlingford doubled in the period particularly in lobster. (Table 12). between 1992 to 1998.103 Concentrations of plutonium- Even though BNFL has reported lower discharges of 239/-240 in Irish mussels today lie between 0.015 and plutonium and americium since the opening of the pur- 0.016 Bq/kg.104 Plutonium-239 and americium-241 have

102 FSA/SEPA 2002: Radioactivity in Food and the Environment, 2001. 103 Greenpeace International, 1998. 104 Ryan,T.P. et al., 2003, page 15.

47 a half-life of 24,100 years and 432 years respectively. somewhat incorrect presentation. However, bladder Concentrations of these radionuclides in Irish seafood wrack seaweed has a water content of approximately 72 can vary radically from year to year as a consequence of percent; hence it is reasonable to assume that the dry remobilization of contaminated sediments on the floor weight figures can be calculated by multiplying the sample of the Irish Sea. RPII points especially to the remobilization results by 3,6.106 of contaminated ocean floor sediments as the most important cause of radioactive contamination along the 6.5 coast of the Irish Sea. Caesium-137 is the dominating Other samples from radionuclide, which according to RPII is responsible for the Sellafield vicinity 60-70 percent of the total dose of radiation to persons Concentrations of plutonium and americium with higher who make their living through harvesting seafood from values than those in the forbidden zone around Chernobyl the Irish Sea.105 have been found on several occasions in the area around Sellafield. In a study of radioactive contamination in Wales carried out by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution it comes to light that plutonium and americium-241 contamination of the area near Sellafield has been found in concentrations of 17 000 Bq/m2 and 15 300 Bq/m2 respectively. These levels of contamination are almost 100 times higher than the values that were measured in samples taken 50 kilometres north of Chernobyl (188 Bq/m2) after the accident in 1986.108 Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution is now a part of the Environment Agency. Greenpeace International has made similar measurements. Soil samples that the organisation took in 1998 seven kilometres south of Sellafield were analysed by the University of Bremen and showed concentrations of americium-241 of 30 000 Bq/kg. For purposes of com- Table 15 parison, samples taken 800 metres from the Chernobyl Concentrations of Pu-239/-240 6.4.1 Contamination of seaweed reactor showed concentrations of about 1300 Bq/kg. in cod, lobster and winkles (FSA/SEPA 1996-2002). BNFL and FSA also take samples of bladder wrack The Sellafield sample also showed concentrations of outside Sellafield.Tc-99 in particular tends to build up to cobalt-60 of 40 Bq/kg, while the figures for caesium-137 a considerable degree in this type of seaweed.There are were 9 400 Bq/kg. On the other hand, samples taken 13 no available figures for other species of seaweed and kilometres from the Chernobyl reactor showed concen- kelp, such as serrated wrack, sea girdle, and egg wrack. trations of 10 Bq/kg for cobalt-60 and 7 300 Bq/kg for However, samples continue to be taken of the edible every kilogram of soil.109 The soil samples taken by the species of Porphyra umbilicalis, which used to be Environment Agency a few kilometres south of Sellafield harvested along local beaches to make laverbread, but at Carlton March showed concentrations of cobalt-60 at can also be used as a spice. 83 Bq/kg.110 Cobalt-60 gives off powerful gamma radia- A certain weakness in the numerical data is the tion. However, the overall total radioactive contamin- representation of seaweed in wet weight. In that ation is of course much higher in the Chernobyl area seaweed and products made from it are usually utilised than at Sellafield. in dry weight, numerical data in wet weight gives a

Table 16: Radioactive contamination in seaweed and kelp (selected radionuclides) Bq/kg (calculated dry weight in parentheses). *Samples of bladder wrack collected at Drigg, three kilometres south of the Sellafield facility. Samples of porphyra umbilicalis collected at St Bees, four kilometres north of Sellafield. Figures from 2000.107

105 Ryan,T.P. et al., 2003, page 15. 106 Amundsen, I., 2003, (By request):Water content in bladder wrack from Hillesøy measured by Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority. 107 BNFL, 2001: Annual Report on Discharges in the UK, 2000, page 34. 108 Greenpeace International, 1990: Coastal Pollution in the Irish Sea. 109 Greenpeace International, press release, 09.10.1998. 48 110 Environment Agency, 2003: Radioactivity in the Environment. Report for 2001. These children are playing on a 6.6 team from Yorkshire Television published their discovery contaminated beach outside the village of Seascale. Sellafield may Incidences of leukaemia that the incidence of leukaemia among children and be seen in the background. among the local population youth in Seascale was seven times greater than the Many studies show that the risk of developing leukaemia normal rate. All of the children who had developed and cancer of the lymph nodes is greater for the leukaemia had been born and grown up in Seascale; population group growing up in and around the vicinity none of them had moved to the village from other of Sellafield than anywhere else in Britain. In 1990, a re- places.113 Several other thorough studies have shown search team from the University of Southampton led by similar connections.114 epidemiology professor Martin J. Gardner published a five The 1990 study concluded that children of Sellafield year study in which it was discovered that the incidence workers had a greater risk of developing leukaemia and of leukaemia in Seascale, a small village two kilometres cancer of the lymph nodes than other children.The study south of Sellafield, was ten times greater than the statistical pointed out that ionising radiation at the Sellafield facility indicators would suggest.111 The study was published in is the most likely cause of this, and suggested that the British Medical Journal, and found five cases of exposure to this radiation could lead to a situation leukaemia where there normally should have been only whereby there was a greater probability of fathers siring 0.5. The same study found further that 4.5 times the children who would develop leukaemia (the Gardner number of children died of cancer in West Cumbria in hypothesis). the period between 1968 and 1978 than in the entire A team of researchers from the University of Newcastle rest of the country - despite the fact that several inci- has recently substantiated the Garner theory. The dences of cancer were not included in the study.112 Newcastle study estimates that there is a double proba- A British television team had made a similar discovery bility that the children of fathers who have worked at the on a much earlier occasion. In 1983, a documentary controversial facility will develop leukaemia and cancer

111 Gardner, M.J., et al., 1987. 113 Gardner, M.J., et al., 1987. 112 Downs, S., 1990. 114 Beral,V., et al., 1993.

49 of the lymph nodes. The study compares the medical journals of 9 859 children of fathers who have worked at Sellafield with the medical journals of 256 851 other children in the Cumbria district in the period from 1950 to 1991.The study also showed that children under the age of seven who were born at Seascale between 1950 and 1991 had a 15 times greater probability than other children of developing lymph cancer or leukaemia. The study emphasised that employees at the facility were exposed to much higher radiation doses thirty years ago than is the rule today.115 Despite these statistical connections, researchers are still unable to give any conclusive evidence for the possible cause and effect relationship between Sellafield and increased risks for developing certain types of cancer. Hence more and more researchers are arguing that it is the scientific models upon which the studies are based that are insufficient to prove the connection. BNFL on the other hand, puts greater weight on other causal relationships and supports a theory developed by Professor Leo Kinlen. Kinlen contends that the mixing of the population, which occurred when people started moving into the area to work at the facility, resulted in the spreading of a virus that could cause leukaemia.116 The theory was first developed in 1988 by Kinlen, but has achieved very little international recognition. Nor is there any evidence of the type of virus Kinlen refers to.

115 Dickinson, H.O., and Parker, L., 2002. 116 Doll, R., 1999.

50 Chapter 7 Discharges of technetium-99 Discharges of technetium-99

In 1994, BNFL's discharges of technetium-99 (Tc-99) increased dramatically. From an average of 4-6 TBq per year throughout the entire 1980s, the discharges increased to 190 TBq in 1995. In the five-year period 1994-1998 BNFL discharged a staggering 530 TBq from Sellafield.117 The discharges sank to some degree towards the end of the 1990s, but have risen again over the last three years (see Table 17).Tc-99 is an artificial product of fission that gives off beta radiation and has a half-life of 213,000 years. The long half-life implies in effect that the discharges are irreversible; once the substance is disposed into the environment, it remains there forever.Tc-99 is very mobile and diffuses readily with the ocean currents to other areas. This mobility and diffusion into the marine environment of Tc-99 has also led for example to the contamination of seaweed and lobsters along the Table 17: Discharges of Tc-99 from Sellafield to the sea in the last seven years (TBq). Norwegian coast. The discharges of technetium come as a result of reprocessing Magnox fuel. Early in the 1980s, liquid medium active concentrate from BNFL's Magnox reprocessing plant (B205) was stored in large tanks on the Sellafield site (building B211) starting in the early 1980s while awaiting start-up of a new purification plant (Enhanced Actinide Removal Plant (EARP)).When EARP went into operation in 1994, liquid radioactive wastes were discharged into the sea after having been cleansed at EARP. However, though EARP removes plutonium, caesium- 137 and strontium-90 from the historic waste, it does not remove Tc-99. Furthermore, reprocessing activities at THORP also produce Tc-99,the difference being that discharges of Tc-99 from THORP are vitrified along with other high-level liquid waste from this plant. In January 2000, the ceiling on Sellafield's discharge Table 18: Tc-99 values in bladder wrack (Fucus vesiculosus) outside Sellafield (Source: FSA/SEPA). *Samples of bladder wrack represent an annual average of four samples collected outside Sellafield. permit for Tc-99 was reduced from 200 TBq a year to 90 TBq a year. Nonetheless, the new discharge limits are still nine times higher than they were in 1993 when the ceiling was set at 10 TBq a year.118 It would therefore appear that the discharge permit was adjusted to fit the needs of BNFL as opposed to any concern about the substance's possible impact on the marine environment. Nor has the British department for the environment set any limitations as to the total amounts of Tc-99 BNFL will be permitted to release. Consequently, BNFL is free to release as much Tc-99 as it wants to, so long as the discharges are spread out over a long period of time.

7.1 Technetium-99 in the marine environment of the Irish Sea The enormous increase of radioactive discharges from Sellafield has had major environmental consequences in Table 19: Tc-99 values in lobster outside Sellafield (Source: FSA/SEPA). local areas surrounding the plant, and in the natural envir- *Samples of lobster represent an annual average of eight samples taken outside Sellafield. onment in the rest of the Irish Sea.Tc-99 concentrations

117 BNFL 2000:Annual Report on Discharges and Monitoring of the Environment in the UK 1999, page 28. 118 CORE Research Paper, 05.03.1998.

52 readily build up in shellfish and certain species of seaweed, and the substance becomes especially concentrated in lobster and bladder wrack (Fucus vesiculosus). Both BNFL and FSA take samples of bladder wrack and lobster outside Sellafield. In Norway, seaweed is harvested and ground into a form of meal that is used as an additive in health food products. Consequently, in Norway and Ireland it is customary to present measurements of radioactivity in seaweed in terms of dry weight. In Britain on the other hand, measurements are given in wet weight, which gives the impression of lower values. Because bladder wrack has water content of about 72 percent, it is reasonable to assume that the dry weight values can be calculated by multiplying the results from the samples measured in wet weight by 3.6.119 Table 20 Tc-99 also has a tendency to build up in egg wrack data from FSA is conservative, and in no way shows any Tc-99 concentrations in bladder (Ascophyllum nodusum) and serrated wrack (Fucus serratus); "worst case" cases in the local marine environment. wrack from Southwest Scotland however, neither BNFL nor FSA has taken samples of In Norway, the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (Source: FSA/SEPA). these species of seaweed outside Sellafield. FSA has has been able to demonstrate that Tc-99 values in sea- taken a few samples of egg wrack in Scotland. weed appear to rise in the winter months.125 This may Table 18 and 19 show how concentrations of Tc-99 in perhaps explain the large variations in the findings that seaweed and lobster increased rapidly after Tc-99 BNFL, FSA and EA have reported in the last years. discharges began in 1994. EU's initiative to limit Neither BNFL nor FSA state at what time of year their radioactivity in food (which go into effect in the event of samples have been taken. In contrast to Norwegian a nuclear accident) are at 1250 Bq/kg.120 The concen- seaweed, the seaweed taken from the coast off Sellafield trations of Tc-99 in seaweed and lobster outside is hardly used at all for further processing and human Sellafield are still well over this limit. consumption. FSA does state however that seaweed In the last few years, both BNFL and the Environment from the coast off Sellafield is sometimes used for Agency report higher concentrations of Tc-99 in seaweed fertiliser on land. and lobster than FSA. As recently as 2000, BNFL Fish lack the same ability to take up the concentrations measured Tc-99 concentrations of 25 000 Bq/kg (wet of Tc-99 as lobster and crab; however, that is not to say weight)121 in bladder wrack outside Sellafield. In the same that concentrations of Tc-99 are not found in fish. In the year, the company reported concentrations in lobster of port city of Barrow south of Sellafield, Tc-99 concen- Table 21 3700 Bq/kg (wet weight). The Environment Agency trations of 14 Bq were measured in plaice in 1998. Data Tc-99 concentrations in bladder reported respective values in bladder wrack outside from BNFL suggest that it is mackerel that has the wrack in North Scotland (N.S) Sellafield in 2000 and 2001 at 19 900 Bq/kg (wet weight) greatest ability to take up Tc-99,but it was not until 2000 and Northern Ireland (N.I) (Source: FSA/SEPA). and 8 980 Bq/kg (wet weight) - values that were double those reported by FSA.122 The numeric data from the BNFL annual report for 1998 showed samples of bladder wrack taken at Drigg (three kilometres south of Sellafield) in which Tc-99 values were as high as 72 000 Bq/kg (wet weight). This was more than three times as high as the figures reported by FSA.123 However, BNFL's quarterly reports note even higher concentrations. For example, in a quarterly report from 1997, Tc-99 values of 52,000 Bq/kg (wet weight) are reported in lobster, and 140 000 Bq/kg for bladder wrack. The reference to a finding of 52 000 Bq/kg in lobster carries the remark "subject to management investigation".124 The great variation between the measurement results of the individual organisations suggests that the numerical

119 Amundsen, I., 2003. (By request). 120 Brown, J., et al.. 1998. 125 Kolstad, A.K., and Lind, B., 2002. 121 BNFL, 2001: Discharges and Monitoring of the Environment in the UK 2000. 122 Environment Agency, 2000: Radioactivity in the Environment, page 107. 123 BNFL, 1999: Annual Report on Discharges and Monitoring of the Environment 1998, page 41. 124 BNFL, 1997: Quarterly reports, referenced in CORE Briefing No. 4, 05.03.1998. 53 that BNFL first began to take samples of this fish species. also takes measurements of Tc-99 in both bladder wrack The numbers from 2000 showed Tc-99 values in and lobster. However, RPII measures bladder wrack in dry mackerel of 7.3 Bq/kg.126 weight. When the discharges of Tc-99 began in 1994, a Table 20 and 21 show concentrations of Tc-99 in quadrupling of Tc-99 in bladder wrack seaweed was bladder wrack from Scotland and Northern Ireland.The measured in Ireland in the first year. In Greenore, Irish values in bladder wrack in Port William have increased authorities found bladder wrack with Tc-99 values of 4 640 thirty times in the period 1992 to 1996. Just in the year Bq/kg (dry weight). In the year 2000 with Tc-99 measure- from 1995 to 1996, the values increased by 73 percent, ments of 5 613 Bq/kg, the values for 2000 were from 1 500 Bq/kg to 2 600 Bq/kg.The highest values to comparable.127 have been found in Scotland so far are at 7 300 Bq/kg Furthermore, studies made by both FSA and SEPA show (wet weight) and were found in 1998 in bladder wrack that Tc-99 values in lobster on the north coast of Scotland near Dumfries. tripled from 1994 to 1996, and doubled from 1995 to The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII) 1996. Lobster in Northern Ireland today has a Tc-99 content of 180 Bq/kg (wet weight).The highest values to be measured in Irish lobster in 2001 showed values of 322 Bq/kg (wet weight).128

7.2 Technetium-99 in the Norwegian marine environment Technetium-99 discharges from Sellafield take approximately 2.5 years to reach the coast of Norway. Quite soon after the heavy increase of discharges from Sellafield, heightened values of the substance were measured along the entire Norwegian coast.As early as November 1996,Tc-99 had reached the shores of Rogaland on the West Coast of Norway, and by December 1997, the substance had reached the coast of Troms in the northern part of Norway. Samples taken by the Table 22: Average annual values of Tc-99 in Norwegian bladder wrack (Fucus vesiculosus) at Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority in 2000 Hillesøy in Troms (dry weight).The figures are approximate (Source: Kolstad,A.K., et al., 2002). show that Tc-99 can be traced all the way to Svalbard.

Table 23: Concentrations of Tc-99 in seaweed and kelp in 2000 and 2001 (Source: Kolstad,A.K., et al., 2002)

Table 24: Concentrations of Tc-99 in kelp (Laminera hyperborea). Source: Kolstad,A.K., et al., 2000).

126 BNFL, 2001: Annual Report on Discharges and Monitoring of the 127 Ryan,T.P., et al., 2003, page 35. Environment 2000, page 37. 128 Ryan,T.P., et al., 2003, page 48.

54 Over the course of 1996 and 1997,Tc-99 was found in 7.2.2 Molluscs and shellfish seaweed, mussels, shrimp and lobster along the entire The highest concentration of Tc-99 to be measured in Norwegian coast. Samples taken in the outer Oslo Fjord Norwegian lobster in 2001 was 41.5 Bq/kg wet weight showed that the concentration of Tc-99 in bladder (Table 25).This is approximately the same level as 1997, wrack had quintupled in only one year, from 36 Bq/kg in when the highest concentrations were measured at 42 1996 to 170 Bq/kg (dry weight) in 1997.129 In 1998, Bq/kg in lobster in Sunnhordaland.130 There is a big dif- these values again increased to 285 Bq/kg. The values ference in the concentrations between male and female measured in shrimp and mussels were much lower lobsters; the highest concentrations are found in female (varying from 2.2 Bq/kg to 7.6 Bq/kg). lobsters. Bellona took six samples of lobster at Kvitsøy in 7.2.1 Seaweed October 2001. The Bellona samples showed maximum Table 22 shows the average annual values of Tc-99 in concentrations of 32.9 Bq/kg in female lobsters and 12.7 bladder wrack seaweed at Hillesøy in Troms county.The Bq/kg in male lobsters.The samples constitute a part of concentrations vary over the course of a year, with the numeric data in Table 25.131 somewhat higher concentrations in the winter months. In Table 26 it may be observed that concentrations of The total picture shows concentrations to be rising.The Tc-99 in mussels and shrimp are less than 1 Bq/kg.The

Table 25: Average Tc-99 concentrations in Norwegian lobster 2001, Bq/kg wet weight. (Source: Kolstad et al., 2002). highest values appeared in January 2002 in which levels in crawfish on the other hand are comparable with measurements came out to 425 Bq/kg (dry weight).The lobster. The Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority most recent monitoring report from the Norwegian (which took the samples) does not state whether any Radiation Protection Authority suggests that the further studies have been made of crawfish or if there is concentrations of Tc-99 in Norwegian bladder wrack any variation between the sexes in the uptake of Tc-99 and egg wrack remain stable, or are increasing. as there is in lobster. One might then assume that the The concentration of Tc-99 in egg wrack (Ascophyllum concentrations of Tc-99 in Norwegian lobster are higher nodusum) samples collected in 2000 at Narestø outside in some places than might be thought. Arendal was measured at 660 Bq/kg. Very few studies have been made in Norway on the "Stortare" (Laminaria hyperborea) is a species of kelp uptake of Tc-99 in fish. The studies from the Irish Sea having a large leaf and stem up to two metres in length. indicate that there is relatively little uptake of Tc-99 in Table 23 and 24 show that Tc-99 tends to build up in this fish, with cod having less ability to take up Tc-99 than kind of kelp to a lesser degree than for example in shrimp (of which there are samples). One can therefore bladder wrack and egg wrack. Activity is somewhat assume that concentrations of Tc-99 in Norwegian cod higher in the stem than in the leaf. are on the borderline of what can be measured. Fish that feed on marine benthos and shellfish are more likely to take up Tc-99.This also holds true for plaice and sole.

Table 26: Concentrations of Tc-99 in other seafood (Source: Kolstad et al., 2000/2002).

129 Brown, J., et al., 1998, page 14-15. 130 Brown, J., et al., 1998. 131 Kolstad, A.K., 2002: Measurement report no. 1, 2002.

55 7.3 to the close of 2006, but the Health and Safety Executive Economic values (HSE) has expressed concern over the physical At this time it is unclear to what degree the radioactive condition of the building.There is major rust damage in contamination over time of Norwegian seaweed and the girders, among other things. lobster can have a negative effect on the environment. As of June 2003, there were more than 2300 cubic What is certain however is that the export markets for metres of liquid MAC stored at B211.This waste contains products from the sea are very sensitive to questions of approximately 230 TBq of Tc-99. Considering the great radioactive contamination. To those who are going to age of the tanks, BNFL has been ordered to empty them buy the products it matters little whether the degree of by the close of 2006. Unless the process is started of contamination is large or small - the point is that they cleansing the waste of Tc-99,the discharges will continue are contaminated, and this puts consumers on their guard. until the end of 2006 whereupon they will be drama- Even today the harvesting of different kinds of seaweed tically reduced when the tanks have been emptied. EA and kelp is big business in Norway.The export value of has proposed that the discharge permit for Tc-99 should processed kelp products from Norway is estimated to be reduced to 10 TBq, but not until after 2006. be at least 500 million Norwegian crowns. This was a strategy that in December 2002 won the For the most part it is kelp (Laminaria hyperborea) that support of Michael Meacher who was Minister of the constitutes the main seaweed product harvested from Environment at the time.There was a small opening for the sea (about 160 000 tonnes wet weight), but about halting Tc-99 discharges when Meacher requested the 16 000 tonnes of egg wrack is also harvested. Kelp and EA to assess the possibility for putting a moratorium on seaweed extracts are used to produce alginate, which in discharges of Tc-99 from B211. EA considered this pro- turn is used as a thickener and stabiliser in medicine, posal and in a letter to DEFRA dated January 7, 2002, paint, ice cream, cake filers and pet foods.132 dismissed Meacher's proposal as "non constructive".134 Bellona has been in contact with several companies that Norwegian Minister of the Environment Børge Brende export different products made of seaweed extracts. has pushed hard for a halt in Tc-99 discharges and Ireland Japanese customers have demanded reduced prices on and the Nordic Council have also protested. In May 2003, the products from certain Norwegian companies as a Brende had a two-hour long meeting with Meacher in consequence of the products no longer being considered London in which the two ministers discussed all aspects to be completely clean. Studies by the Norwegian of the matter. One of the proposals Brende took with Radiation Protection Authority of Tc-99 in alginate from him to London was a Bellona proposal for a 12 month kelp along the coast of Norway show low values (under moratorium on Tc-99 discharges in expectation of the 1 Bq/kg dry weight.) development of new purification technology.This proposal Lobster is also considered a possible export industry for eventually won through, and in June 2003, Margaret Norway in the future. Several successful experiments Beckett, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and have been made in putting out lobster, at Kvitsøy in Rural Affairs sent a letter to Brende in which she stated Rogaland to name one. However, it is possible that that she intended to introduce a nine month moratorium radioactive contamination in Norwegian lobster could on Tc-99 discharges. The same month, the same harm the development of this industry. resolution also found its way into the declaration of the ministers during the OSPAR meeting in Bremen. 7.4 In July 2003, BNFL committed itself to experiment on a Future discharges of technetium-99 large scale with tetraphenylphosphonium bromide (TPP) On the order of EA, in the summer of 2000, BNFL began technology. If this new purification technology should fall to vitrify all new MAC originating from Magnox reproces- into place, the discharges of Tc-99 would be reduced sing activities in B205. Present day discharges of Tc-99 dramatically.The new British Minister of the Environment therefore come entirely from the tank facility B211.The Elliot Morley will make the final decision on the matter. discharge ceiling for this tank facility is set at 90 TBq a year. 7.5 There are ten tanks altogether in B211. Five of the tanks Purification methods for are used for storing intermediate radioactive liquid waste technetium-99 (medium active concentrate, or MAC); two tanks are In principle, there are three ways to purify Sellafield's utilised for storing the solvent from the waste; two other liquid radioactive waste of Tc-99:build a new purification tanks contain liquid waste from THORP,while the last tank facility; expand the existing facility with new technology; is an empty buffer tank.133 The tank facility was built in or vitrify all of the Tc-99 contaminated liquid that is 1951 and is thus over 50 years old. It is licensed through stored in B211.

132 Iversen, S.A. (ed.), 2001, pp. 119-121 134 Environment Agency, 07.01.2003. 133 Environment Agency, 07.01.2003.

56 Børge Brende, Norwegian 7.5.1 New purification facility 7.5.2 New purification technology using TPP. Minister of the Environment, met his British colleague, Elliot Morley, One way to handle Tc-99 waste is to build a new purifica- Another option for handling Tc-99 discharges is to make during the OSPAR-ministrel tion facility in addition to the existing EARP.The facility use of a new type of purification technology.This cleansing meeting in Breme in June 2003 could utilise a form of ion exchange process (using organic technique entails adding the precipitation chemical sap), or a chemical process using a sodium solution that tetraphenylphosphonium bromide (TPP) to the liquid separates the Tc-99 and a filter. Uncertainty remains as waste that is being treated in EARP.The process creates to how well these techniques would work. BNFL has a precipitant (tetraphenylphosphorium) which blends with estimated that new purification facility of this type would the other precipitants that are created in the EARP cost between 100 and 150 million pounds, and that it process.The existing filters in EARP are then cleansed of would take about five years to build. this "TPP soup" which is then cemented and stored on land as so-called intermediate level waste.The technology is almost ready, and implementation of it will not cost

57 more than three million pounds, including the develop- 7.5.3Vitrification ment costs.135 Vitrification is a method of storing radioactive waste that However, the TPP process does entail being left with a entails turning the waste into glass. One possibility is to few thousand extra steel barrels of Tc-99 waste stored vitrify all of the liquid waste from B211.This can be done in concrete. Since Tc-99 is a relatively mobile radio- in the Sellafield WVP (Waste Vitrification Plant).Altogether, nuclide, there is some doubt as to whether the concrete it is a matter of vitrifying approximately 2 300 of liquid will be able to lastingly bind the nuclide in a long lasting medium activity waste (medium activity concentrate future repository. The British company vested with the (MAC). responsibility to plan a future nuclear repository in There is already a pipe between the MAC vaporising Great Britain, NIREX, was therefore long in doubt as to plant (B268) and WVP. Hence there should be no whether it could handle the new form of waste that the practical problems in transferring the waste for vitrification. TPP method would create. And without approval from Incidentally, it has also been decided that all MAC that is NIREX, BNFL could not take the technology into use. generated in B205 in the future should be vitrified. However, a paradox in this connection is that doses of One of the challenges in vitrifying all of the historic radiation from potential future leaks of Tc-99 from a waste in B211 is that WVP is already pressed to capacity. repository on land will be lower than the doses of BNFL has been enjoined to reduce the large amounts of radiation the most exposed population group receives historic Highly Active Liquor (HAL) which is being today as a consequence of discharges to the sea. currently stored in tanks on site within the facility. In NIREX carried out new studies in the spring of 2003, order to comply, BNFL must vitrify large amounts of which showed that TPP waste is less problematic than HAL every year. Furthermore, if the facility is to vitrify earlier thought.The reason for this was that the earlier the liquid waste in B211 as well, this could cause projections were based on outdated calculation problems in reducing the amounts of HAL. The Health models.136 and Safety Executive (HSE) estimates the capacity of the One of the challenges in using TPP as a purifying agent vitrification plant to be about 475 barrels a year. is the adverse impact of the substance on the marine BNFL argues that the concentrations of iron and sodium environment. Studies of TPP show that the lethal con- in the historic MAC waste are so high so as not to be centration of TPP for algae, invertebrates, fish larva and suitable for treatment in WVP.The reason for this is that young fish is 1200 µg/ litre; in other words, 50 percent of the old waste has been processed in an evaporator on the test animals died at this concentration in the several occasions (to minimise the volume). BNFL has seawater. Discharges of TPP to the environment must established limits for how high the concentrations of therefore be limited when using this type of purification iron, salt and sodium can be in MAC prior to treatment technology. While waiting for national and international in WVP.In the historic MAC waste today, there is 1 kg of standards for TPP,the Environmental Agency has set the iron and 1 kg of sodium per cubic metre of MAC.138 One threshold value for TPP in seawater at 120 µg/ litre. No way of solving the problem would be a gradual and effect is expected at lower concentrations than this.The careful mixing of MAC in the continual stream of highly value is set for short-term exposure, while for long term active liquor that is being treated in WVP.However, this exposure the limits are set at 12 µg/litre.137 Therefore would be a time-consuming process. Furthermore, in more testing of TPP toxicity in the environment is view of the technical physical state of B211, this would needed - also of ways to limit TPP discharges if it is to require either the construction of another building over be utilised as a cleansing agent. B211, or another tank facility. BNFL estimates that a new construction over B211 would cost 100 million pounds, A plant trail, involving TPP was carried out during while a new tank facility could cost as much as 300 the autumn 2003. million pounds.139

135 Environment Agency, 2002: Decision Document, page 159. 138 BNFL, 25.07.2000: Letter to Environment Agency. Referenced in Environment 136 NIREX, 20.06.2003. Agency, 2001. Explanatory document, Appendices and Annexes. 137 Amundsen, I. et al., 2003, page 22. 139 Environment Agency, 07.01.2003.

58 Chapter 8 Discharges in the future Discharges in the future

8.1 from the reprocessing plant at Sellafield and La Hague OSPAR must be immediately halted. Otherwise the concentrations In July 1998, the British government signed an agreement of radioactivity in the environment will continue to in- that in reality commits the country to halt all radioactive crease, reaching levels in 2020 that are much higher than discharges by 2020.The agreement was signed in Sintra they are today.This is true because many fission products in Portugal during a meeting of ministers at the OSPAR remain in the environment far longer than 20 years. convention on preserving the marine environment in During the OSPAR meeting in Copenhagen that took the Northeast Atlantic. All fifteen-member countries of place in 2000, the OSPAR countries agreed further to OSPAR, as well as the European Commission signed the investigate alternatives to reprocessing, for example dry agreement, which states: storage of spent nuclear fuel. However, Great Britain and France expressed reservation on this declaration. The "…the objective of the Commission with regard to radio- most recent meeting of ministers in the OSPAR con- active substances, including waste, is to prevent pollution of vention was held in Bremen in June 2003. Here it was the maritime area from ionising radiation through progressive established that Great Britain would effect a nine-month and substantial reductions of discharges, emissions and moratorium on discharges of Tc-99. losses of radioactive substances, with the ultimate aim of concentrations in the environment near background values 8.2 for naturally occurring radioactive substances and close to Alpha and beta discharges zero for artificial radioactive substances."140 Despite its obligations under the OSPAR convention, BNFL prognoses indicate that the company plans to in- In signing this agreement, the OSPAR countries, including crease its discharges of a number of different radioactive the United Kingdom and France, acknowledged that it is fission products in the coming years.This is made evident unacceptable to discharge radioactive substances into in a BNFL document sent to the UK Environment Agency the environment in the manner in which it is done today. in January 2000.142 This document shows that BNFL The agreement also states: intends to increase the total discharge of alpha activity to the sea by over 400 percent, from 170 GBq to 888 "The Commission will ensure that discharges, emissions and GBq, and to maintain this rate of discharge until 2009. A losses of radioactive substances are reduced to levels where presentation of this may be seen in Table 28. the additional concentrations in the marine environment Discharges of plutonium will increase by more than 200 above historic level, resulting from such discharges, percent, from 140 GBq in 1998 to more than 400 GBq. emissions and losses, are close to zero."141 Furthermore, the discharges of the highly radiotoxic alpha emitter americium-241 will increase by almost 280 This means that the radioactive discharges will be percent compared to discharge figures for 1998. Finally, reduced so that the remaining concentrations of radio- discharges of caesium-137 will increase by 140 percent, activity in the marine environment are close to zero by strontium-90 will increase by 200 percent and cobalt-60 2020 (except for what is already there as a consequence will increase by 85 percent.143 of earlier discharges). At worst, discharges in the future will exceed the In essence, this means that the radioactive discharges current authorised limits. BNFL writes:

Table 27: Discharges to the sea.Worst case scenario, compared with discharge authorisation (Source: BNFL 2000).

140 OSPAR, 1998, page 17. 142 BNFL, 2000: Review of Discharges, Appendix 2, page 19. 141 OSPAR, 1998, page 17. 143 BNFL, 2000: Review of Discharges, Appendix 2, page 19. .

60 "Comparison of the total worst case discharges with the current authorised limits (...) shows that discharges of over half the currently authorised radionuclides are predicted to be at levels approaching or above the limits."144

This is confirmed by DEFRA.145 At worst, the discharges of plutonium-241 could exceed current discharge authorisation levels by 73 percent, and americium-241 by 22 percent, while according to BNFL, the total alpha discharges could burst the parameters of the entire discharge authorisation, reaching 1710 GBq.146 The present discharge authorisation for americium-241 is 1000 GBq. Beta discharges are also expected to be quite high, but will not exceed the discharge authorisation which is now set at 400 TBq. Table 28: Projected alpha discharges.147 Discharges of plutonium will increase by more than 200 percent, from 140 GBq in 1998 to more than 400 GBq. Furthermore, the discharges of the highly radiotoxic alpha emitter americium-241 will increase by almost 280 percent compared to discharge figures for 1998. Finally, discharges of caesium-137 will increase by 140 percent, strontium-90 will increase by 200 percent and cobalt-60 will increase by 85 percent. At worst, discharges in the future will exceed the current authorised limits. BNFL writes:

"Comparison of the total worst case discharges with the current authorised limits (...) shows that discharges of over half the currently authorised radionuclides are predicted to be at levels approaching or above the limits."

This is confirmed by DEFRA. At worst, the discharges of Table 29: Projected beta discharges.148 plutonium-241 could exceed current discharge authorisation levels by 73 percent, and americium-241 by 22 percent, while according to BNFL, the total alpha discharges could burst the parameters of the entire discharge authorisation, reaching 1710 GBq.The present discharge authorisation for americium-241 is 1000 GBq. Beta discharges are also expected to be quite high, but will not exceed the discharge authorisation which is now set at 400 TBq. British authorities have confirmed that an increase in discharges compared to 1998 levels was planned, but that they had not planned for the increase to be so large. Yet having signed the new OSPAR agreement in which Great Britain commits itself to reducing radioactive discharges henceforth and up to 2020, the country is also committed to showing how it plans to achieve this goal.At the OSPAR meeting in Copenhagen in 2000, British authorities presented their plan, and in Table 30: Future discharges. Iindividual radionuclides.149 the document The UK Strategy for Radioactive

144 BNFL, 2000. Review of Discharges, Appendix 2, page 7. 147 BNFL 2000: Review of Discharge, Appendix 1, table 16. 145 The Daily Telegraph, 26.06.2001. 148 BNFL 2000: Review of Discharge, Appendix 1, table 16. 146 BNFL 2000: Review of Discharge, Appendix 2, table 19. 149 BNFL 2000: Review of Discharge, Appendix 1, table 16.

61 Discharges 2001-2020, the British Ministry of the Environment illustrates how the discharges are to be Table 31 reduced.This document also shows a projected increase in discharges of alpha activity to about 300 GBq by 2008. However, the figures from BNFL are even higher, and the worst case figures are almost five times as high. Reported discharges BNFL is also expecting beta activity discharges to increase. to sea of Co-60 up to Compared to 1998, beta discharges will increase by 2000, and prognoses for discharges almost 150 percent, from 86 TBq in 1998 to 213 TBq in from 2001-2009. the coming years. Discharges of strontium-90 alone will increase by 200 percent and BNFL plans to maintain discharges at this level until the beginning of 2009. Table 32 The dramatic increase in discharges is mainly due to two conditions. First of all, BNFL intends to reprocess all of the remaining Magnox fuel in its Magnox facilities before B205 is closed down in 2012. Secondly, THORP must reprocess large amounts of fuel in the coming years if Reported discharges to sea of I-129 BNFL is to fulfil the conditions of its contracts with its and prognoses baseload customers. Much of this fuel has a higher burn- for discharges up than the other types of fuel that are reprocessed at from 2001-2009. THORP, and BNFL says that this could cause problems in meeting all the discharge requirements. Tables 31 to 35 show the projected discharges from Table 33 Sellafield.These projections were made in 2000.Technical problems with THORP and B205 have led to operational delays and less fuel being treated in the two plants than originally planned. This in turn has led to a situation Reported discharges whereby the increases in discharges have been pushed to sea of Sr-90 out into the future by a few years. and prognoses for discharges from 2001-2009.

Table 34

Reported discharges to sea of Cs-137 and prognoses for discharges from 2001-2009.

Table 35

Reported discharges to sea of Pu-alpha and prognoses for discharges from 2001-2009.

62 Chapter 9 Radioactive waste Radioactive waste

The reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel generates new (Highly Active Storage Tanks or HAST) in building B215. forms of radioactive waste. The volume of radioactive The waste comes from the reprocessing facilities B205 and waste that comes of reprocessing is multiplied several THORP.Before it is stored in tanks, the waste is minimised times compared to direct storage of spent nuclear fuel in volume through treatment in three evaporators. on land. This is because all of the equipment utilised in The oldest tanks in B215 were taken into use in 1955 reprocessing, such as solutions, acids, containers, filters and are now almost fifty years. Bellona has inspected the and machine parts all become contaminated by radio- facility on two occasions. The 21 tanks can be divided activity.The total amount of radioactivity remains approx- into two different types of design. The first eight tanks imately the same as before the fuel is reprocessed, but were taken into use in the time period 1955 to 1968 when the radioactive fission products are released from and are located in their own part of the building. All of the fuel, they become mixed into new chemical and these tanks have a capacity of 70m3. The tanks are physical forms that in many instances are more difficult horizontal and are constructed of stainless steel, measuring and more expensive to treat. In addition, large amounts 10.6 metres in length and 3 metres in diameter.The four of plutonium are produced which requires safe and oldest tanks have only one cooling circuit, while the secure storage. other four have three cooling circuits. The two oldest tanks contain waste from the military reprocessing facility 9.1 B204. Tanks 4-6 contain waste from B205, and in these Highly Active Liquor tanks amounts of radioactive sludge have settled on the Reprocessing at THORP and B205 produces large bottom.Tanks 7 and 8 are empty buffer tanks.150 amounts of highly radioactive liquid that contains several The remaining tanks (HAST 9-21) all have a capacity of fission products. When measured in radioactivity, this 150m3 (see illustration 1.) These tanks are cylindrically liquid (Highly Active Liquor, or HAL) represents over 95 shaped 6.2 metres high and 6.2 metres in diameter.The percent of the total radioactivity that was present in the tanks were taken into use in the period from 1970 to fuel before it was treated. 1990. All of the tanks have seven cooling circuits. Tanks After the plutonium and the uranium have been extracted 10, 14, and 17 are empty buffer tanks for safety reasons. from the liquid, the remaining waste is transferred to The temperature of the waste is between 50 and 60 separate special tanks (Highly Active Storage Tanks) to degrees Celsius. The contents of the tanks vary from be stored.The liquid is later converted into solid form at tank to tank.Active cooling is required to ensure that the Sellafield's vitrification plant. tanks do not start to boil. More than 1 570 m3 of high-level liquid waste is stored The waste in these kinds of tanks constitutes a serious in tanks at the Sellafield site today. safety problem.To illustrate, it was a tank like one of these that exploded in 1957 at the Soviet reprocessing facility 9.2 at Mayak.The force of the explosion corresponded to 75 Tank facility (B215) tonnes of TNT and was caused by failure of the cooling The highly active liquid waste (HAL) is stored in 21 tanks system at one of the tanks in the facility.151 As a result of the accident, an area of 15 000 square kilometres was radioactively contaminated by strontium-90 and more than 10 000 people had to be evacuated from the area. Entire villages were burned to the ground and the upper layers of soil were scraped off and treated as waste. A similar accident at Sellafield would have catastrophic consequences. 95 percent of the activity in the HAL tanks is attributable to caesium-137 and strontium-90.The current amounts of caesium-137 activity in the Sellafield tanks are more than 100 times the activity that was released during the Chernobyl accident.152

9.3 Illustration 1 Waste vitrification plant (WVP) Highly active liquid nuclear waste In 1990, BNFL opened a plant to vitrify (convert into is stored in tanks such as these. Each tank can accommodate glass) the large amounts of high level liquid waste 150 m3 of waste. generated by reprocessing activities.The plant was built

150 HM Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, 2000. 151 Nilsen,T., et al., 1990. 152 Amundsen, I. et al., 2003, page 2.

64 Highly active liquid nuclear waste with two production lines, which were expected to 9.3.1 Injunction to reduce the amount of liquid is converted into glass and stored in steel containers like these. produce about 600 containers of vitrified waste per waste annum.153 However, due to a series of different problems, The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) has ordered the vitrification plant has not been operating as expected. BNFL to reduce the volume of stored HAL to a "strategic On average, the plant has vitrified only 34 percent of the amount" of 200m3 by 2015. In practice this means that waste it is designed to handle. In 2001 the plant had BNFL must vitrify more HAL than the company manages produced 2 280 containers of vitrified waste.154 to produce. If BNFL manages to achieve these targets As a consequence, a third production line valued at largely depends upon the capacity of the vitrification £100 million was completed at the close of 2001. With facility. At present, the vitrification facility has not a new production line in place, BNFL has set a goal of succeeded in producing at the rate expected, and this producing 600 barrels of vitrified waste a year. However, has delayed the process of converting the large stores of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) estimates HAL into solid form.156 that with three production lines in operation, the vitrifi- If BNFL does not succeed in raising the production cation plant will still only be able to produce 475 capacity in WVP,it will either have to reduce the amounts containers a year. In a letter to BNFL dated January 31, of fuel to be reprocessed (so as to decrease the produ- 2001, NII writes: "BNFL's performance predictions for the ction of HAL), or build a fourth production line at WVP.157 Waste Vitrification Plant have historically proved over- Due to the low grade of enrichment in Magnox fuel, the optimistic." With three production lines in operation, WVP can treat five times more liquid generated through WVP produced 320 barrels of vitrified waste in the Magnox reprocessing than it can liquid from oxide fuel, financial year 2001/2002.155 a point that BNFL confirms.158 Hence it is the capacity of WVP that limits the amount of oxide fuel that can be

153 HM Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, 2000. 156 HM Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, 2000, summary. 154 Forwood, M., 2001. 157 HM Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, 2000, summary. 155 The Whitehaven News, 05.05.2003. 158 BNFL Engineering No. 9, 1997.Vitrification Line 3, referenced by Forwood, M., 2001. 65 reprocessed in THORP.Given the constraints BNFL has possible place to deposit the waste. NIREX proposed to received from NII, it may well be difficult for the com- build a laboratory deep under ground to carry out pany to fulfil the commitments to its baseload contracts further studies of the location. Today the plans have by the deadline of April 2005. In order to reach this goal, been put aside, and NIREX sharply criticised for its THORP would have to reprocess more than 1000 deportment during the political discussion of the matter. tonnes of oxide fuel a year, on top of the 1000 tonnes Accusations were made that the location was selected of Magnox fuel that BNFL aims to reprocess on annual on grounds of political convenience and not necessarily basis. Given such high production, it will be impossible to because of suitability of the location's physical geology. It reduce the stored of HAL with WVP capacity being has since come out that NIREX withheld scientific what it is today. information and attempted to portray Sellafield as a more suitable locale for a repository than their studies 9.3.2 No final repository plan had actually shown.160 As a consequence of the scandal, Vitrified high active waste is stored in its own building efforts towards a final repository were set back several within the Sellafield compound. So far, more than 2000 years. The largest producers of British nuclear waste, m3 of vitrified high activity waste has been produced including BNFL Plc, UKAEA, and British Energy, are also and packed in special steel containers. The volume the owners of NIREX. In July 2003 however, the British increases proportionally with the treatment of high government gave signals that NIREX would be made active liquid waste in WVP. more independent of the nuclear industry.161 Long-lived, medium active waste (intermediate level waste, or ILW) is also stored at Sellafield.This is not vitrified, but 9.4 cemented into containers.The cementing of ILW began Low-level waste in 1990. There is a great deal of historic waste to be Low-level waste is generated on a daily basis, both as a processed, and so far, approximately 17 000 tonnes of consequence of regular operations at the Sellafield cemented waste have been produced.159 facilities, and to an ever-increasing degree, in view of the The plan is to permanently deposit both ILW and high ongoing efforts to decommission old facilities. Low-level active waste in deep geological formations at some time waste in solid form is sent to the repository at Drigg in the future. The Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste located a few kilometres south of Sellafield, while low- Management Executive (NIREX) is a company that was level waste in liquid form is discharged into the sea. established at the behest of the British nuclear industry Drigg is constructed in the form of an enormous to assess strategies for coping with all the radioactive concrete pool at ground level. Before any waste can be waste, including the highly active, vitrified waste. In 1991, placed in the repository, it has to be converted to solid NIREX identified an area in the vicinity of Sellafield as a form.The repository is filled over time with steel drums, The BNFL quay facility at Barrow with the final plan being to fill up the "pool" again with cement and cover it over with soil. With the exception of UKAEA's repository for low-level waste in the Dounreay area, Drigg is the only repository for radioactive waste in Great Britain. Consequently, low- level waste from the whole country is transported to Drigg. In 1995, BNFL took into use a facility to compress low-level waste, the Waste Monitoring and Compaction Plant (WAMAC).162 This facility came into use in view of the fact that Drigg will soon be filled to the rim. The drainage water from Drigg is known to contain some radioactivity, but it runs into the River Irt and flows down further to the mouth of the river at Ravenglass, a few kilometres south of Sellafield. Much of the ground beneath Sellafield is contaminated by radioactivity and is categorised as low-level waste. However, BNFL has obtained permission to deposit this contaminated soil at an isolated site within the facility compound (The South Tip).163

159 NIREX, 2001: Introduction to Radioactive Waste. 160 The Guardian, 23.07.2001. 161 NIREX press statement, 16.07.2003. 162 BNFL, 2000: Annual Report on Discharges and Monitoring of the Environment 1999, page 31. 163 BNFL, 2000: Annual Report on Discharges and Monitoring of 66 the Environment 1999, page 31. The nuclear transport vessels 9.5 nature and the environment. This could happen in Pacific Pintail and Pacific Teal in the harbour at Barrow. Storage of plutonium at Sellafield possible acts of terror against the facility or in the event As of 2003, approximately 80 tonnes of plutonium were of a major fire or large explosion at Sellafield. being stored at Sellafield. Of this, 55 tonnes are owned by BNFL, plutonium that has been separated over the 9.5.1 Physical safety course of many years from spent reactor fuel through The buildings that contain 80 tonnes of plutonium are of reprocessing activities. Today this plutonium takes the relatively simple construction, build on the surface within form of plutonium dioxide and is stored as powder in the Sellafield complex. In other words, there are no rock stainless steel drums that are kept in their own buildings barriers over the storage. A recent government report within the Sellafield compound (B302 and B302.1). criticised the physical security around the plutonium There are two risk factors connected to such large-scale facility. According to the report, the structure of the storage of plutonium. First and foremost, plutonium buildings is weak and gives poor protection against fire stored in the form of plutonium dioxide is readily used or explosions on the Sellafield site.The commission that in the production of nuclear weapons. In the sprit of made the report was appointed by the British non-proliferation, it is hence important that the government to assess the physical safety of the Sellafield plutonium does not go astray. facility following the acts of terror against the United The second point of concern with the plutonium storage States on September 11, 2001. The group consisted of is the continual risk of a situation arising whereby the members of MI5 and NII. Independent authorities that stored plutonium is somehow inadvertently released to have examined drawings of the facility maintain that the

67 buildings are not sufficiently robust, and that they would builders. Plutonium-240 and other higher isotopes (Pu-241 not be able to withstand violent impact such as a plane and Pu-242) diminish the military value of the pluto- crash, for example.164 Today the Sellafield facility is a no- nium. In terms of security policy, there are different fly zone. Proposals have also been made to position categories of plutonium, subject to the percentage of cannons so as to be able to shoot down any aircraft on Pu-240. If the stored plutonium contains less than seven course for the facility.Yet despite these provisions, there percent of Plutonium-240, it is considered to be weapons is no doubt that buildings containing such large amounts grade.165 of plutonium must be secured further against possible The copious amounts of plutonium now in storage at acts of terror. Sellafield may be classified as reactor plutonium. Given that it takes 20 kg of reactor plutonium to make a 9.5.2 Non-proliferation nuclear bomb, it is hence possible to make 4000 nuclear Whatever form it takes, whether it is weapons grade bombs out of the plutonium that is stored there. In that plutonium or reactor plutonium, plutonium is a nuclear the facility has produced plutonium for weapons pur- explosive. The United States has always held this view poses in the past, it is logical to assume that the selfsame and demonstrated it when it detonated a nuclear bomb weapons grade plutonium is also stored at the facility. made of reactor plutonium in 1962. Nevertheless With accessibility to weapons grade plutonium, 3 kg would plutonium-239 is the preferred isotope of weapons be more than enough to make a weapon of sizeable

164 The Guardian, 20.01.2002. 165 Eriksen,V.O., 1995.

68 yield (1 kiloton).166 Regardless of its classification, the 9.6 plutonium storage must be properly guarded so that the Transportation of nuclear waste substance does not go astray. Therefore thorough In 1998, BNFL started its own transportation company accounts are kept of the stored plutonium; the area - Direct Rail Services (DRS). DRS is responsible for the where it is stored is considered to be its own security rail transport of all fuel from the seaport town Barrow- zone, and ordinary employees at the facility do not have in-Furness to Sellafield.The company is also responsible access to this area. for all transports of fuel to and from the AGR plants In the long run, however, it is far from satisfactory that belonging to British Energy, not to mention transports such large amounts of plutonium are stored in a form from BNFL's own Magnox plants to Sellafield.168 that can be so readily utilised in the manufacture of BNFL also has its own company for the sea transport of weapons. Therefore several proposals have been made nuclear materials. This company, Pacific Nuclear as to how plutonium can be converted into a passive, Transport Ltd (PNTL), was established in 1976, with more secure and less accessible form. BNFL is the primary owner, and Japanese and French BNFL would like to make MOX fuel out of the stored companies as co-owners. PNTL vessels transport spent plutonium for use in its prospective new AP-600 and reactor fuel from Japanese nuclear reactors to Sellafield AP-1000 reactors. However, it is not certain that the and La Hague for reprocessing. government will approve a new reactor program. The PNTL has seven ships in its fleet. The ships load and last nuclear power plant to be built in Great Britain, unload fuel at BNFL's private quay facility in Barrow in Sizewell B, was completed in 1988. It is also uncertain the Cumbria district. The vessels are loaded and whether MOX fuel can be used in Britain's gas-cooled unloaded at BNFL's private port in Barrow, Cumbria. reactors. Certainly the Magnox reactors cannot use The vessels are authorised as INFR3, which is the MOX. Furthermore, a security problem with using MOX International Maritime Organisation's (IMO) maximum would be the increased number of transports of MOX safety classification for ships.169 Two of the vessels, Pacific fuel in Great Britain: in that MOX fuel contains up to 10 Pintail and Pacific Teal, both have a 30 mm naval cannon percent plutonium, the transports could be an attractive installed on quarterdeck, and if the vessels are trans- target for terrorists. MOX fuel could also be attractive as porting plutonium or MOX fuel, the presence of armed a material in so-called "dirty bombs". personnel are also required on board.The chambers in Plutonium can also be used to make other forms of mixed which the fuel is stored during transport are sealed off, fuels that can be utilised in reactors around the country. and there are no cranes on board the vessel.This makes One such alternative is so-called Inter Matrix Fuel. it much harder to steal the transport bottles. European Another possibility is to immobilise the plutonium, that Shearwater is another vessel that is frequently utilised, is, to blend the plutonium with other liquid radioactive and is engaged primarily in transporting Swiss and waste and then cast (or vitrify) it into ceramic moulds German fuel from Cherbourg. which could then be permanently stored in deep geo- Chile, Argentina, South Africa and New Zealand have all logical formations. Immobilised plutonium is virtually im- protested against BNFL's transportation of MOX, spent possible to extract; however, this alternative necessitates reactor fuel and high level nuclear waste close to their the building of a facility that can carry out immobilisation territorial waters. Due to intense public protest, Japanese on a large scale. BNFL estimates that at least five percent companies (the Federation of Electric Power Companies) of the stored plutonium will have to be immobilised have negotiated with Russian authorities concerning use anyway in that it is unsuitable for use in new nuclear of the Northeast Passage as a future transportation artery fuel.167 for high level vitrified waste from La Hague and

Table 36: BNFL's transport vessels for reactor fuel and highly active nuclear waste.

166 Ibid, page 194. 168 BNFL Annual Report & Accounts 1998. 167 The Environment Council, 2003: Plutonium Working Group, final report. 169 BNFL Annual Report & Accounts 2000

69 Sellafield. If this goes through, transports will follow the coast of Norway before (with the help of Russian nuclear ice breakers) finding their way through the Northeast Passage on their way to Japan. BNFL recently bought a seventh ship to add to its fleet - MV Arneb. The ship has now been renamed Atlantic Osprey,and will be used to transport MOX fuel between Sellafield and the European mainland. The biggest difference between this ship and the other BNFL ships is that Osprey is a roll-on/roll-off (ro-ro) vessel built to transport the lorries that transport the fuel. Several organisations have expressed their scepticism to using ro-ro vessels to transport MOX fuel. Atlantic Osprey has a lower security clearance (classified as INFR2) from IMO than the other transport vessels.The vessel has lower safety standards than Pacific Pintail and Pacific Teal, it has no reserve engine to take over in the event of the ship's engine going dead, and furthermore, it is only a single hulled vessel.

70 Chapter 10 Discussion Discussion

Sellafield today is considered to be one of the most major reuse it. However, the predictions of a uranium shortage contributors of radioactive contamination to the Arctic have proven to be wrong, and today the price of uranium marine area. Contamination from the plant can be traced is lower than ever. in the environment from the Irish Sea to the Barents Nor has the development of the so-called breeder Sea. Because of the discharges from Sellafield, the Irish reactors proceeded as expected.The breeder reactor is Sea is today the world's most radioactive polluted sea a particular type of reactor that runs on uranium/pluto- area. nium fuel, which was meant to produce more plutonium Still, there is little knowledge of how radioactive fission than it consumed - plutonium, which could thereby be products and transuranium elements move in the environ- used as new fuel in the reactor.While in the 1970s this ment, or how they affect people and the environment, reactor type was considered to be the reactor of the especially the vulnerable environment of the Arctic. future, the view today is very different. The world's Several of the substances discharged from Sellafield have largest breeder reactor, the French Superphénix, was finally such very long half-lives such that once they are released shut down in 1998 after a series of serious problems into the environment, they will essentially remain there and leaks from the primary circuit.170 The British breeder forever seen from mankind's perspective of time. Further- programme was ended in 1994, and the German breeder more, it is impossible to reverse the damage to the reactor in Kalka never even went into operation.Today, environment caused by these discharges. Several studies only Japan and Russia continue active research on show that the discharges from Sellafield not only remain breeder reactors. in the marine environment, but that the substances are As of July 2003, there are at least 80 tonnes of pluto- transported to shore via sediments, sea mist or shore nium stored at the Sellafield site. Considering the further sand along the entire coast of the Irish Sea. No one really 50 tonnes in storage at the French reprocessing plant in knows what effect these radioactive concentrations will La Hague and the multiple tonnes of weapons-grade have on humans and the natural environment in a long- plutonium that will come to light when the United States term perspective. and Russia begin to implement the disarmament agree- During a meeting between ministers at the 1988 ment START 2, there is no longer any need to "recycle" OSPAR -convention, the United Kingdom committed to plutonium from spent reactor fuel. The large stores of reducing the discharges from Sellafield whereby the different types of plutonium that exist at Sellafield are an remaining radioactive concentrations in the marine enduring security problem as well as a potential threat environment would approach zero by the year 2020 to the environment. Until sound and sensible methods (not including the concentrations already present there of managing the existing stocks of plutonium are deve- as a consequence of earlier discharges). In reality this loped, further production of the substance is simply not means that the discharges will have to be reduced justifiable. Furthermore, it is impossible to eliminate all of immediately, in order to completely cease in the future. the radioactive substances produced by reprocessing Otherwise, the concentrations of radioactivity in the using today's technology. environment will be higher in 2020 than they were when Therefore, in view of health, environment and security the agreement was signed in 1998. Yet as this report concerns, Bellona considers continued reprocessing of shows, BNFL nevertheless intends not only to continue, spent nuclear fuel to be unjustifiable. The environment but also to increase its discharges from Sellafield. surrounding Sellafield is already so contaminated that The considerable discharges from Sellafield notwith- every new discharge of radioactivity violates the OSPAR standing, the economic parameters for reprocessing have convention, the public health and environmental safety in also changed dramatically since the close of the 1970s. the area. Likewise, the discharges of technetium-99 must At the time, there was increasing concern that the be stopped once and for all. As long as the discharges world's reserves of uranium would be depleted by the from Sellafield are allowed to continue, the United end of the 20th century. Hence it was considered very Kingdom will stand out as the primary culprit for sensible to extract uranium from spent reactor fuel and spreading radioactive pollution in Europe.

170 Reuters, 03.02.1998.

72 Appendix 1

Managing the Nuclear Legacy

In November 2001, the Government announced radical The nuclear legacy primarily consists of: changes to current arrangements for the clean up of - Nuclear sites and facilities currently operated by the Britain's nuclear legacy.These arrangements will be funded United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) and by the taxpayer. British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL).These were developed A White Paper, "Managing the Nuclear Legacy - a strategy in the 1940s, 50s and 60s to support the Government's for action", was published in July 2002. A key proposal of research programmes. Also included are the wastes, the White Paper is the establishment of a new public materials and spent fuel produced by those programmes. body, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA). The combined undisclosed liabilities of BNFL and British The Government set out proposals for the NDA in its Energy are £7.1bn. Energy Bill in November 2003.The NDA will be a national - Liabilities arising from the Joint European Torus (JET), body, established by primary legislation, with responsibility which supports fusion research at UKAEA's Culham site for legacy facilities in the UK.This body will provide the - The Magnox fleet of nuclear power stations currently strategic direction for cleaning up Britain's civil public operated on the Government's behalf by BNFL. Also sector nuclear sites. included are plant and facilities at Sellafield used for the The NDA is not intended to carry out clean up work reprocessing of nuclear fuel and all associated wastes itself. Instead, it will place contracts with site licensees, and materials. currently BNFL and UKAEA, who will be responsible for the clean up programme at each site. Site licensees will The cost of the total legacy is currently estimated at some need to meet relevant regulatory requirements and will £48 billion in total.171 This figure represents the best esti- be incentivised through contracts to drive forward the mates based on current knowledge and the successful clean up work.The NDA will provide the required overall application of today's technology. In practice, however, management and direction for legacy clean up. there are uncertainties about what needs to be done to BNFL operates a range of plants and facilities at its deal with particular installations or wastes. Initial estimates Sellafield site, in particular THORP and SMP,which provide put the NDA's operating costs in the range of £25-30 commercial fuel services to private sector and overseas million pa. customers. These, and the wastes, materials and spent fuel at Sellafield owned by BNFL's commercial customers, are not part of the legacy. Furthermore, THORP and SMP were built with decommissioning in mind.

171 Dti 2003: Funding Clean Up Appendix 2

Discharges to the Sea from Sellafield 2000

(Source: OSPAR 2000, BNFL 2001, EA 2002).

74 Appendix 3

Magnox reactors

The reactors at Calder Hall were the first of a whole store spent nuclear fuel in the 1960s. In contrast to dry new generation of British reactors that later came to be storage, the risk of corrosion and deterioration in known as Magnox reactors. In total, 26 such reactors Magnox fuel is clearly much greater in wet storage. To were built in the United Kingdom. Except for Calder Hall diminish this risk, BNFL's goal is to reprocess the fuel as and its sister power plant, Chapelcross, all of the reactors soon after its removal from the reactors as possible. were constructed in the period between 1960 and BNFL produces its own Magnox fuel at Springfields, 1970. Of these reactors, 12 are still in operation and close to Preston. The Springfields plant was established dispersed between five different plants. The production in 1960 and produces 700 tonnes of Magnox a year, of electricity by Magnox is low, and the Magnox reactors although its production capacity is almost double that.174 in operation account for only 5.5 percent of electricity In May 2000, BNFL announced that it would close down production in England and Wales.172 most of its Magnox reactors by the end of 2010. Production of Magnox fuel at the Springfields plant will Calder Hall and Chapelcross were built and run by end in the same year.Three nuclear power plants have UKAEA, but in the early 1970s, all of the Magnox plants already closed as a consequence: Hinkley Point (2000), were transferred to a separate, government-run Bradwell (2002) and Calder Hall (2003). Calder Hall was company called Magnox Electric Plc. In 1998, this actually supposed to operate until 2006, but technical company was integrated into BNFL which today owns problems at the facility led to the closing down of all and manages all of the British Magnox reactors. Spent four Calder Hall reactors in the course of 2002/2003. fuel from all of the Magnox reactors is reprocessed at BNFL has promised that the remaining Magnox plants BNFL's Magnox reprocessing plant (B205) at Sellafield. will not operate beyond these dates. Subject to safety Today, Great Britain is the only country to operate and market considerations, they may be shut down Magnox reactors. Early in the 1960s, British Magnox sooner.175 reactors were delivered to Japan (one) and Italy (one), Originally, BNFL had planned to prolong the lifetime of but both of these are now shut down. The Japanese certain individual Magnox nuclear power plants through Magnox plant was shut down in 1998.173 the development of a new ceramic fuel called Magrox The name Magnox comes from the special kind of fuel specially designed for these reactors.176 However, used in the reactors. While most reactors in use today technical and economic problems lead to the shelving of utilise fuel in the form of uranium oxide (UO2), the Magrox fuel plans in 2001. Magnox reactors are run on a natural metallic uranium Over the last years BNFL has had considerable trouble form of fuel. This is encased in a special magnesium with its old Magnox reactors. Due to major technical oxide cladding, hence the name Magnox. problems, all four reactors at Hinkley Point and Bradwell The use of metallic Magnox fuel has been very were inoperative for almost all of 2000.As a result of the problematic, both from an environmental and security- difficulties with the reactors, BNFL ultimately decided to related vantage point. Uranium metal corrodes very close Hinkley Point for good.The decision became final easily in contact with water and damp compared to after an economic study concluded that an investment ceramic uranium oxide. When metallic uranium comes of several million pounds would be necessary to keep in contact with damp, it decays into powder of uranium the plant going. As a consequence of the problems, the oxide and uranium hydride, both of these are flammable. already low electricity production of the Magnox plants Corroded fuel constitutes a considerable safety fell a further 15 percent from 1999 to 2000.178 problem. There was trouble again on July 5, 2001 when a canister With the exception of the Wylfa power plant, all of the containing 25 spent fuel rods fell to the floor at the Magnox plants utilise water pools for storage of spent Chapelcross plant in Scotland.179 After this accident, BNFL nuclear fuel. This was the natural and obvious way to temporarily halted all refuelling activities at Chapelcross

Table 37: Magnox reactors still in operation.177

174 Nuclear Engineering International, 2001. 172 BNFL, 2002: Annual Report and Accounts 2001. World Nuclear Industry Handbook 2001: page 243 173 Nuclear Engineering International, 2001. 175 BNFL 23.05.2000. World Nuclear Industry Handbook 2001: pp. 158-159. 176 BNFL, 23.05.2000. 177 BNFL, 2003: EH&S Report 2001-2002, page 15. 178 BNFL, 2001: Annual Report and Accounts 2000, page 16. 179 Wise News Communiqué 552. 75 and Calder Hall which both use the same refuelling system.180 The final result of the matter was that BNFL had to move forward the closing of the two old power plants to 2003 for Calder Hall and 2005 for Chapelcross respectively. The Wylfa nuclear power plant (completed in 1971) is the third Magnox facility that BNFL has had problems with. Both reactors at this plant were closed in April 2000 when weaknesses were discovered in the concrete construction of the reactors.181 The facility remained closed for 15 months before the production of power resumed in August 2001. BNFL hopes to build four to six new light-water reactors in the same location that some of the shut down Magnox reactors now stands.These new reactors have been developed by the BNFL owned company Westinghouse, and have been given the names AP 600 and AP 1000. The British government has proposed a goal to reduce the country's CO2 emissions by 60 percent by 2020. In order to achieve this, the government would like to pursue alternative sources of energy, and the construction of new nuclear power plants has been laid on ice for the time being. However, the government is open for a new assessment of nuclear power at a later point in time.182

180 BNFL press release, 08.07.2001. 181 Large, J.H., 2001, page 9. 182 DEFRA, 2003: Energy White Paper.

76 Appendix 4

Other reprocessing facilities

La Hague The French reprocessing plant La Hague along with Sellafield are the main originators of radioactive contamination in the Northeast Atlantic, the North Sea and the Barents Sea. Even though discharges from La Hague are smaller than those from Sellafield, they too can nevertheless be traced all the way to the Barents Sea. The existing transuranic substances along the coast of Norway originate from discharges from both Sellafield and La Hague. There are two large reprocessing plants at La Hague: UP2, which went into operation in 1966; and UP3, which went into operation in 1990. Discharges flow through effluent pipe 1 700 metres from the shore. Since 1966, the plant has reprocessed more than 16 000 tonnes of fuel. Generally speaking, discharges from La Hague tend to be considerably lower than discharges from Sellafield, with the exception of tritium (H-3) and Iodine-129, The shut down reprocessing which are much higher from La Hague than from worked as expected, and Britain's costly fast breeder prog- facility at Dounreay in Scotland. Sellafield.The discharges of Tc-99 from La Hague are less ramme was finally ended in April 1994.The reprocessing than 1 TBq, and alpha discharges in the year 2000 lay plant at Dounreay was finally shut down in 1996, after around 37 GBq.183 This is a third of the alpha discharges some serious problems with the technical system. from Sellafield, which were 120 GBq. However, La Hague Nevertheless, there are still 25 tonnes of spent nuclear too plans to reprocess fuel with a higher burn-up, fuel being stored at Dounreay. As late as July 2001, the whereby the discharges from the French plant may also British government decided against reprocessing this fuel increase in the coming years. In addition to this, there are at Dounreay, with the consequence that Dounreay was also plans for reprocessing MOX fuel at La Hague. shut down for good.This left La Hague and Sellafield as Despite lower actual discharges, the ceilings of the the only commercial reprocessing plants left in Europe. French discharge authorisations are in fact higher than Whether the fuel stored in Dounreay will be sent to the British.This gives La Hague more leeway to increase Sellafield for reprocessing or continue to be stored in its discharges if it should be considered necessary. For Dounreay, has yet to be decided.185 instance, the current La Hague discharge authorisation for alpha activity to the sea is 1 700 GBq as opposed to Mayak 1 000 GBq for BNFL. Discharges of Iodine-129 from La The Russian reprocessing plant Mayak is thoroughly Table 38: Hague are very high, and in 2000 were at 1 400 GBq as discussed in Bellona Working Paper No. 4: 1995: Comparison of alpha and beta compared to 470 GBq from Sellafield.184 Iodine-129 has "Reprocessing Plants in Siberia", and consequently does discharges from Sellafield and a half-life of 17 million years, and is very mobile within not receive any attention here. La Hague in 2000 (GBq/year). (Source: OSPAR, 2002). the environment. The long half-life combined with the fact that the substance diffuses relatively easily implies that the substance could accumulate in the food chain.

Dounreay Dounreay in Scotland used to be the centre of reactor research in the United Kingdom.There used to be two reprocessing plants and two fast breeder reactors at Dounreay. The largest of the two reprocessing facilities could process 8 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel a year, and was opened in 1980. The concept behind so-called fast breeder reactor was that by using nuclear fuel produced by for example plutonium, more fuel would be produced (plutonium-239) than was spent (uranium-235).Yet despite nearly 40 years of fast breeder research, the reactors have never really

183 COGEMA, 2001:Yearly Assessment 2000 of COGEMA - La Hague plant releases. 185 Bellona Web 26.07-2001. 184 OSPAR, 2002: Liquid Discharges from Nuclear Installations in 2000.

77 References/Bibliography - Brungot,A.L. Føyn, L. Carroll, J. Brown, J. Kolstad,A.K. Bøe, B. Hellstrøm,T. Rudjord,A.L. 1999: Radioactive contamination in the - Albright, D. Berkhout, F.Walker,W. 1997: Plutonium and Highly marine environment- Report no 3 from the national surveillance Enriched Uranium 1996.World Inventories, Capabilities and Policies. programme". Statens Strålevern, Østerås 1999. Rapport 6. Oxford University Press,Walton Street, Oxford 1997. - COGEMA 2001: Yearly assessment 2000 of COGEMA-La Hague plant - Alstad, I. Eikelmann, I.M.H. 2001: Kartlegging og overvåking av releases. [Online]. Available from http://www.Cogemalahague.com. radioaktivitet i saltvannsfisk i nordområdene. Statens Næringsmiddeltilsyn, [Downloaded July 2001]. Oslo. Rapport 5. 2002. - DEFRA 2002: UK strategy for radioactive discharges 2001-2020. - Amundsen, I. Brekken,A. Liland,A.2003: Utslipp av radioaktive stoffer Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, London, July 2002. fra Sellafield-anleggene. En gjennomgang av britiske myndigheters - DEFRA, DtI 24.02.2003: Our energy future- creating a low carbon regulering av utslippstillatelser. Statens Strålevern 2003. economy/ Energy White Paper. - AMAP 1997: Arctic Pollution Issues. A state of the Arctic Environment - Dickinson, H.O., Parker, L. 2002: Leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's Report. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, Oslo. 1997. ISBN lymphoma in children of male Sellafield radiation workers. International 82-7655-060-6. Journal of Cancer.Volume 99, Issue 3. 20. May 2002. Online ISSN: 1097- - Andersen, R. Benecke, J. et al., 1986: International Nuclear Rector 0215 Print ISSN: 0020-7136 Hazard Study. Design and Operational Features, and Hazards of - Doll, R 1999: The Seascale cluster: a probable explanation. British Journal Commercial Nuclear Reactors in the World. Volume 1: Summary and of Cancer,Vol. 81, Issue 1, September 1999. Cancer Research UK. Conclusions. Project Management and Scientific Co-ordination: - Environment Council 2000: BNFL National stakeholder dialogue. Gruppe Ökologie Hannover. Discharges working group, interim report. The Environment Council, - Arnold, L. (Consultant, UKAEA) 1995: Windscale 1957, Anatomy of a London, 28. Februar y2000. Nuclear Accident. Palgrave Macmillan, London/Basingstoke - UK, 1995. - Environment Council 2003: BNFL National stakeholder dialogue. ISBN: 0333482530. Plutonium Working Group, Final Report. The Environment Council, - Beral,V. Roman, E. Bobrow, M. (editors) 1993: Childhood cancer and London, March 2003. nuclear installations. British Medical Journal Publishing Group, London - Environment Agency 1999: Radioactivity in the Environment Report for 1993. 2000. A summary and radiological assessment of the Environment Agency's - Beral,V. Maconochie, M. Doyle, P.Roman, E. Davies, G. Smith, P.G. monitoring programs. Environment Agency, National Compliance 1999: The nuclear industry family study: linkage of occupational exposures Assessment Service, Lancaster 1999. to reproduction and child health. BMJ Publishing Group, London 1999. - Environment Agency 2000: Radioactivity in the Environment Report for - Berkhout, F. 1991: Radioactive Waste. Politics and Technology. 2000. A summary and radiological assessment of the Environment Agency's Rootledge, London and New York 1991. monitoring programs. Environment Agency, National Compliance - Berkhout, F. 1993: Fuel reprocessing at THORP: Profitability and public Assessment Service, Lancaster 2000. Liabilities. Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Princeton - Environment Agency 2000: Supporting information. A package of University, New Jersey. 1993. information in support of the EA's Review of Tc-99 discharges from BNFL - BNFL 1997: Annual Report 1996. plc Sellafield into the Irish Sea. EA,Warrington 2000. - BNFL 1998: A Company Profile 1998. - Environment Agency, 2000: Scope and methodology for the full re- - BNFL 1999: Annual Report and Accounts 1998. examination of the Sellafield authorisations for the disposal of radioactive - BNFL 1999: Annual Report on Discharges and Monitoring of the waste. EA February 2000. Environment, 1998. - Environment Agency 2001: Radioactivity in the Environment Report for - BNFL 2000: Annual Report and Accounts 1999. 2000. A summary and radiological assessment of the Environment Agency's - BNFL 2000: Annual Report on Discharges and Monitoring of the monitoring programs. Environment Agency, National Compliance Environment in the UK, 1999. Assessment Service, Lancaster 2001. - BNFL 2000: Review of discharges and disposal of radioactive waste and - Environment Agency 2001: Explanatory document, to assist public effluents from the premises of BNFL at the Sellafield site. Appendix 1 and consultation on proposal for the future regulation of disposal of radioactive 2. BNFL plc. February 2000. waste from BNFL plc Sellafield. EA, 30 July 2001. - BNFL 2001: Annual Report and Accounts 2000. - Environment Agency 2001: Explanatory document, Appendices and - BNFL 2001: Annual Report on Discharges and Monitoring of the annexes. EA, 30. July 2001. Environment in the UK, 2000. - Environment Agency 2001: Decision document. Proposed decision on - BNFL 2001: Environment, Health and Safety Report 1999 - 2000. the future regulation of Tc-99 discharges from BNFL plc Sellafield into the - BNFL 2003: EH&S Report 2001-2002. Irish sea. EA,Warrington, September 2001. - Brown, J. Kolstad,A.K. Lind, B. Rudjord,A.L. Strand, P.1998: - Environment Agency 2002: Proposed decision for the future regulation Technetium-99 Contamination in the North Sea and in Norwegian Coastal of disposals of radioactive waste from BNFL plc Sellafield. Decision Areas 1996 and 1997. Statens Strålevern, Østerås, 1998. Rapport nr. 3. Document. EA,Warrington, August 2002. - Eriksen,V. O. 1995: Kjernevåpen - hva nå? Villa Sole Forlag, Kjeller 1995.

78 - Food Standards Agency and Scottish Environment Protection - Martiniussen, E. 2001: Sellafield reprosesseringsanlegg i Storbritannia. Agency 2002: Radioactivity in Food and the Environment, 2001. Rife-7. Bellona Working Paper 5:2001. Miljøstiftelsen Bellona, Oslo 29.08.2001. FSA, London, September 2002. - Mathishov, G.G. Mathishov, D.G. Szczypa, J. 1993: Radionuclides in the - Forwood, M. 2001: BNFL & Reprocessing.The Deception of Customers bottom sediments and biota of the shelf and Barents Sea coast. Continues. CORE Cumbria, 2001. Murmansk Marine Biological Institute, Murmansk 1993. - Forwood, M. 2002: The Export of MOX fuel to Switzerland. CORE, - May, J. 1989: The Greenpeace Book of the Nuclear Age.The hidden history, Cumbria 2002. the human cost. Victor Gollancz Ltd. London 1989. ISBN 0-575-04567-1. - Gardner, M.J, Snee, M.P.Hall,A.J. Powell, C.A. Downes, S.Terrell, J.D: - Nies, H. Herrmann, J 1999: Temporal Trends of Artificial Radioactivity in 1990: Results of case-control study of leukaemia and lymphoma among European Seas. pp. 314-317. In: Radiation Res.Vol. 2: Proceedings. young people near Sellafield nuclear plant in West Cumbria. British Editors. Moriaty, M. Mothersill, C. Seymour, C. Edington, M.Ward, J.F. Fry, Medical Journal 300, 17. February 1990. (6722): 423-9. R.J.M. 11th International Congress of Radiation Research, Dublin, - Hartnett, M. 2003: A Review of the Oceanography of the Irish Sea. Vol 2, Ireland, July 18-23, 1999. Appendix 7. - NIREX 2001: Introduction to Radioactive Waste. - Henriksen,T. 1993: Stråling og Helse. Fysisk Institutt, Universitetet i - NIREX 20.06.2003: Update on NIREX Position on Disposability of Tc- Oslo 1993. 99 as ILW. - HM Nuclear Installations Inspectorate 2000: The Storage of Liquid - Nilsen,T. Bøhmer, N. 1995: Reprocessing plants in Siberia. Bellona Hugh Level Waste at BNFL Sellafield. Health & Safety Executive, Working Paper 4: 1995. Miljøstiftelsen Bellona, Oslo 1995. February 2000. - Nilsen,T. Bøhmer, N. 1994: Kilder til radioaktiv forurensning i Murmansk - HM Nuclear Installations Inspectorate 2002: BNFL Sellafield and Drigg og Arkhangelsk fylker. Bellona Rapport Nr. 1 1994. Miljøstiftelsen and UKAEA Windscale Local Liaison Committee report. Quarterly Reports Bellona, Oslo 1994. for 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. Available from http://www.sllc.co.uk/nii.html - Nuclear Engineering International 2001: World Nuclear Industry - Iversen, S.A (red) 2002: Havets ressurser 2002. Fisken og Havet, handbook 2001. Wilmington Publishing Ltd.Wilmington UK 2001. special edition 1-2002. Havforskningsinstituttet, Bergen, 2002. - Nuclear Engineering International 2003: World Nuclear Industry - Kansai Electric Power Co. Inc, June 2000: Summary of the Investigation handbook 2003. Wilmington Publishing Ltd.Wilmington UK 2003. into BNFL MOX Fuel Issue. - OSPAR 1998: OSPAR Strategy with Regard to Radioactive Substances. - Kershaw, P.J.Pentreath, R.J.Woodhead, D.S. Hunt, G.J. 1992: A review (Reference Number: 1998-17). OSPAR Secretariat, London 1998. of radioactivity in the Irish Sea. MAFF Aquatic Environment Monitoring - OSPAR 2000: Quality Status Report 2000 for the North-East Atlantic. Report No. 32. OSPAR Secretariat, London. - Kolstad,A.K. og Rudjord,A.L. 2000: Radioaktiv forurensing i marint - OSPAR 2002: Liquid Discharges from Nuclear Installations in 2000. miljø.Tc-99 i sjøvann og biota 1998 og 1999. Statens Strålevern, Østerås, OSPAR Secretariat, London. 2000. Rapport 7. - OSPAR 2003: Bremen Statement. Ministerial Meeting of the OSPAR - Kolstad,A.K. 2002: Målerapport nr 1. 2002. Statens Strålevern, Commission, Bremen 25 June 2003. OSPAR Secretariat, London. Østerås, 2002. Commissioned by Bellona. - Ryan,T.P.McMahon, C.A. Dowdall,A. Fegan, M. Sequeira, S. Murray, - Kolstad,A.K. og Lind, B. 2002: Radioactivity in the Marine Environment M. McKittrick, L. Hayden, E.Wong, J. Colgan, P.A.2003: Radioactivity 2000 and 2001.Technetium-99 concentrations in Norwegian coastal monitoring of the Irish marine environment 2000 and 2001. Radiological waters and biota. Statens Strålevern, Østerås, 2002. Rapport 6. Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII), Dublin April 2003. - Large, J.H. 2001: Review of Ageing Processes and Their Influence on - Rudjord,A.L. Føyn, L. Brungot,A.L. Kolstad,A.K. Helldal, H.E. Brown, Safety and Performance of Wylfa Nuclear Power Station. Large and J. Iosjpe, M. Christensen, G. 2001: Radioactivity in the Marine Associates Consulting Engineers. Report No R3049-A1. Environment (RAME) 1999. NRPA Report 2001:9. Statens Strålevern, - MacKerron, G. 2000: Analysis of Fuel Cycle Assumption in Draft 5 and Østerås 2001. NEA/OECD - Radiological Impact of Spent Fuel Management Option. - Sadnicki, M. 23. mai 2001: The Sellafield MOX Plant (SMP) Justification SPUR - Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex. Consultation. Examination of New Information Presented by BNFL and Paper prepared for Greenpeace International. DETR in the March 2001 Round of Consultation. - McCubbin, D. Leonard, K.S. Maher, B.A. Hamilton, E.I 1999: - Sumner, D.J. 2000: Radioactive Discharges from La Hague. Version 3, Association of 210Po(210PB) 239+240Pu and 241 Am with different 23. mai 2000. Greenpeace International 2000. Available from: mineral fractions of a beach sand at Seascale, Cumbria, UK. The Science http://archive.greenpeace.org/~nuclear/ospar2000/html/content/ospar0 of the Total Environment 254 (2000) 1-15. 0/docs/reports/OSPARsumner.pdf - Makhijani,A. Hu, H.Yih, K. (editors) 2000: Nuclear Wastelands. A - Sumner, D. Johnson, R. Peden,W. 2000: The United Kingdom, in Global Guide to Nuclear Weapons Production and its Health and Makhijani, A. Hu, H.Yih, K. (editors): Nuclear Wastelands.The MIT Press, Environmental Effects. By a special commission of International Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, 2000. Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER). MIT Press 2000: Cambridge, Massachusetts, London. ISBN: 0-262-13307-5.

79 Articles and notes - CORE 1997: NRPB Cancer Study. CORE Briefing No 13/97. CORE, Barrow-in-Furness 1997. - BBC News 30.03.2000: Sellafield affair 'badly damaged' BNFL. - CORE 1997: Sellafield Radiation Leak. CORE Briefing 14/97. CORE, [Online]. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/694996.stm Barrow-in-Furness 1997. [Downloaded 19.07.2003]. - CORE 2001: Chapelcross shut down after fuel rod accident. Wise - BBC News, 6 April 2000: Nuclear plant bosses admit safety breach. News Communiqué 552,WISE-Amsterdam 2001. [Online]. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/703911.stm - Deere-Jones T. 1991: Back to the land:The sea-to-land transfer of [Downloaded 04.07.2001]. radioactive pollution. The Ecologist, Jan/Feb 1991.The Ecologist, - BBC News, 14 June 2001: Ireland takes UK to court over Sellafield. Ecosystems Ltd, London 1991. [Online]. Available from: - DEFRA, December 2002: DRAFT,The Technetium-99 (Future Regulation http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1388626.stm [Downloaded of Discharges from Sellafield) Direction 2002. 14.06.2001]. - Department of Trade and Industry (Dti) 2003: Managing The Nuclear - BBC News 05 October 2000: BNFL fined over Sellafield safety. Legacy. Available from: http://www.dti.gov.uk/nuclearcleanup/index.htm [Online]. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/957080.stm - Downs S. 1990: The 10 years of investigation into the health impact of [Downloaded 10.07.2001]. the Sellafield Reprocessing Plant on Local Communities in Cumbria. - BBC News, 22 July 2000: MOX: The voyage home. [Online]. Available The THORP Report, CORE, Barrow-in-Furness 1990. from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/828638.stm [Downloaded - Environment Agency 07.01.2003: Response to DEFRA consultation 03.07.2001]. proposed direction to the EA to report on the possibility of imposing a - BBC News, 17. February 2000: Sellafield nuclear records faked. moratorium on the discharges of Tc-99 pending the introduction of TPP [Online]. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/646230.stm abatement technology. Environment Agency, London, 2003. [Downloaded 03.07.2001]. - ENDS Daily 01.03.2000: Sweden stops Sellafield spent fuel shipment. - Bellona web, 26.07.2001: Britene stenger Dounreay. [Online]. Available Environmental Data Services, London 2000. from: http://www.bellona.no/no/energi/atomkraft/sellafield/21420.html - Forwood, M. 20.02.2003. Personal account. [Downloaded 26.07.2001]. Miljøstiftelsen Bellona, Oslo 2001. - Greenpeace International 1990: Coastal pollution in the Irish sea. - Bellona Web, 21.02.2003: Germans may pull plug on reprocessing. Greenpeace, London, 1990. [Online]. Available from: - Greenpeace International 1993: The THORP Papers, a response to http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/nuclear/sellafield/28624.html British Nuclear Fuels briefing:THORP the FACTS. Greenpeace, London, 1993. [Downloaded 08.05.2003]. Miljøstiftelsen Bellona, Oslo 2003. - Greenpeace International 1998: Additional Evidence of Failure to - Berkhout F. 1997: The International Civilian Reprocessing Business. Reduce and Eliminate Marine pollution from Nuclear Reprocessing Energy and Security No. 2 1997. Institute for Energy and Environmental Discharges since the OSPAR Ministerial Meeting. Research.Takoma Park, Maryland, USA 1997. OSPAR 1998 (MMC 98/6/NGO.03-add.1-e). - BNFL Press Release 2 September 1996: Calder Hall Celebrates 40 - Greenpeace International 1998: Radioactive Contamination in Scotland years of Operation. [Online]. Available from: http://www.bnfl.com from BNFL's Sellafield Reprocessing Plant. Greenpeace, London, 1998. [Downloaded 8 July 2003]. - Greenpeace International, Press Release 09.10.1998: Sellafield as - BNFL Press Release 23 May 2000: BNFL confirms Magnox station heavy contaminated with radioactivity as Chernobyl, Greenpeace, lifetimes. [Online]. Available from: http://www.bnfl.com [Downloaded Amsterdam 1998. July 2001]. - Greenpeace International 21.02.2000: BNFL - MOX fiasco. - BNFL Press Release 8 July 2001: Chapelcross fuelling machine issue. Greenpeace, London, 2000. [Online]. Available from: [Online]. Available from: http://www.bnfl.com [Downloaded 8 July 2001]. http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/contentlookup.cfm?CFID=173535&CFT - BNFL 29.05 2001: Shipments of Nuclear Material Between Switzerland OKEN=26150477&ucidparam=20000217153831 and the UK. [Online]. Available from: http://www.bnfl.com [Downloaded [Downloaded June 2001] June 2001]. - Greenpeace International 17.04.2000: Rotten to the core. Revelations - BNFL January 2003: BNFL Response to the Secretary of State about BNFL's business and Sellafield since publication of the three nuclear Regarding the Ministers' Decision on the Environment Agency's Proposed installations inspectorate safety reports. Greenpeace, London, 2000. Decision on the Future Regulation of Tc-99 Discharges. - Guardian unlimited, 28.07.2001: Mothballed plutonium plant faces - BNFL 1997: "Reprocessing". Briefing notes on aspects of BNFL. £250m loss. [Online]. Available from: - Bunyard, P.1986: The Sellafield Discharges. The Ecologist Vol 16, No http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,528724,00.html 4/5 1986. Ecosystems Ltd, London 1986. [Downloaded 28. July 2001]. Guardian Newspapers Ltd, London 2001. - CORE 1990: THORP Report. CORE, Barrow-in-Furness 1990. - Guardian Unlimited, 15.09.2000: BNFL losses all-time high. [Online]. - CORE 5 March 1998: Technetium 99 - BNFL discharges to the Irish Sea. Available from: A CORE research paper. CORE Barrow-in-Furness 1998. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,368539,00.html - CORE 1998: Nuclear reprocessing accidents at Sellafield 1950 - 1996. [Downloaded juni 2001]. Guardian Newspapers Ltd, London 2000. CORE, Barrow-in-Furness 1998.

80 - Guardian Unlimited, 31.05.2001: Scientist says BNFL plant is terrorist - Reuters 3.02.1998: - France shuts one nuclear breeder reactor and risk. [Online]. Available from: restarts another one. Referenced by CCNR News [Online]. Available http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,499014,00.html from: http://www.ccnr.org/news/news_briefs_98.html#table [Downloaded June 2001]. Guardian Newspapers Ltd, London 2001. [Downloaded 17.01.2001]. - Guardian Unlimited, 18.07.2001: Government warned off MOX - Seth,A. 1997: "Reprocessing Where and How". Energy and Security No. 2. [Online]. Available from: 1997. Institute for Energy and Environmental Research.Takoma Park, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,523377,00.html Maryland, USA. [Downloaded 18.07.2001]. Guardian Newspapers Ltd, London 2001. - The Daily Telegraph, 01.01.1988. Full extent of Windscale fire revealed, - Guardian Unlimited, 23.07.200: NIREX admits culture of secrecy. 1957 contamination was worse than 3 Mile Island. [Online]. Available from: - The Daily Telegraph 01.04.2001: British Nuclear Fuels plunges into the http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,525844,00.html red. [Online]. Available from: [Downloaded 23.07.2001]. Guardian Newspapers Ltd, London 2001. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fmoney%2F2001 - Guardian Unlimited, 25.05.2002: BNFL in MOX deal with E.ON. %2F04%2F01%2Fcnnuc01.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=329430 [Online]. Available from: [Downloaded 8. July 2003].Telegraph Group Ltd, London 2001. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,721851,00.html - The Daily Telegraph 26.06.2001: Sellafield emissions predicted to rise. [Downloaded 25.05.2002]. Guardian Newspapers Ltd, London 2002. [Online]. Available from: - Guardian Unlimited 28.06.2001: Mothballed plutonium plant faces http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2001%2 £250m loss. [Online] Available from: F06%2F25%2Fnuke26.xml http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,528724,00.html [Downloaded 8 July 2003].Telegraph Group Ltd, London 2001. [Downloaded 28.06.2001]. Guardian Newspapers Ltd, London 2001. - The Daily Telegraph 25.10.2001: BNFL mission to charm Japan. - Guardian Unlimited 23.07.2001: NIREXx admits culture of secrecy. [Online]. Available from: [Online]. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fmoney%2F2001 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,525844,00.html %2F10%2F25%2Fcnbnfl25.xml [Downloaded 8 July 2003].Telegraph [Downloaded 23.07.2001]. Guardian Newspapers Ltd, London 2001. Group Ltd, London 2001. - Guardian Unlimited 20. January 2002: UK's plutonium 'kept in a shed'. - The Independent, 31 mars 2000: Reprocessing? No thanks. [Online]. [Online]. Available from: Available from: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,636450,00.html http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=4880 [Downloaded 21.01.2002]. [Downloaded 19.07.2003]. - Guardian Unlimited: Special Report.The Nuclear Industry. Various - The Independent 13 April 2001: Germans will restart Sellafield articles [Online]. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear shipments. [Online]. Available from Guardian Newspapers Ltd, London 2003. http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=66474 - Hanschke C, Finsterwalder L, Jungmann C.R, Prüßmann S,Wiese H. [Downloaded 17.07.2001]. 1999: Experience with dismantling and the German reprocessing plant -The Independent 13 May 2001: Foreign firms threaten crisis for WAK, CONFERENCE, FEBRUARY 28 - MARCH 4, 1999. Sellafield. [Online]. Available from: - Kolstad.A.K. 2002: "Målerapport nr. 1 2002". Statens Strålevern, http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=71897 seksjon miljøovervåkning 24. mars 2002. [Downloaded 17.07.2001]. - Martiniussen, E. 1998: I den internasjonale atomindustriens bakgård. - The Independent 14 May 2001: BNFL moves to head off revolt by Natur og Samfunn nr. 3. 1998. Natur og Ungdom, Oslo 1998. foreign firms. [Online]. Available from: - Moss, Z., 20.01.2003: British government set to underwrite nuclear http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/story.jsp?story=72049 liabilities. Bellona Foundation, Oslo. Available from: [Downloaded 17.07.2001]. http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/nuclear/28002.html - The Independent 25 May 2001: Ministers face court over secret report - Natur og Ungdom 2000: Sellafield øker sine utslipp. Bakgrunnsnotat on Sellafield. [Online]. Available from: 27.06.2000. Natur og Ungdom, Oslo 2000. http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=74456 - NIREX 16.07.2003: NIREX to be made independent. NIREX press [Downloaded 17.07.2001]. statement. NIREX Ltd, Harwell. - The Independent 28. May 2001: Historic Japanese vote deals blow to - NIREX 2001: Introduction to radioactive waste. NIREX Ltd, Harwell. BNFL fuel prospects. [Online]. Available from: - Nuclear Engineering, april 2003: World's first commercial reactor is http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/story.jsp?story=74939 shut down after 47 years. Nuclear Engineering International,Wilmington [Downloaded 17.07.2001]. UK 2003. - The Sunday Herald 29.06.2003: Radioactive pollution in Solway '100 - Nuclear Engineering, april 2003: Software Helps Remove Pile 1 at times higher than expected'. [Online]. Available from: Windscale. Nuclear Engineering International,Wilmington UK 2003. http://www.sundayherald.com/34913 [Downloaded 29.06.2003]. - Nuclear Fuel Vol. 28 No. 4 17.02.2003. - UKAEA 2001: The WAGR Project. [Online]. Available from: - Reuters 22.02 1996: Sweden may reclaim nuclear fuels from Britain. http://www.ukaea.org.uk/wagr/wagr.htm# [Downloaded 09.07.2001].

81 - UKAEA 06.07.2001: Remote Control (Phase 1 decommissioning, Windscale Pile 1). [Online]. Available from: http://www.ukaea.org.uk/windscale/nearticle.htm [Downloaded 9. July 2003]. - Wise News Communiqué (no. 552) 17.07.2001: UK: Chapelcross shut down after fuel rod accident. World Information Service on Energy (WISE), Amsterdam, 2001. - Whitehaven News 05.05.2003: It's a glass act from BNFL.